ohiogurl:

stillhidden:

waitingandseeing:

him-e:

stillhidden:

waitingandseeing:

Go on, I’m finished…

You know, now that the show has started to bring in these themes about how death and moving on are good and vampires are stuck outside that natural cycle, this is actually a really sad scene for Eric. He was supposed to move on to somewhere better and I dunno if we’re supposed to see him being turned instead as such a good thing. 

That’s a good question. And one, I think, the show poses often, without being obvious. Look at Eddie, for instance. Or, hell, Lorena (given what Bill was saying about her pre-being turned by a psychopath). Or even Bill himself. 

And yes, Eric has had a much better maker (or, rather, what little we know of him and what their relationship has been like. We don’t know everything), but this is a question beyond whether the conditions of your post-death life are better or worse than the ones you left behind. It’s a question of fulfillment, expectations, fitting into what is, frankly, an unnatural life. 

Some make it a success. Eric has, undoubtedly. You don’t survive for a 1,000 years by just making do. Many others have, too. But would he have been happier if he weren’t turned? Would any vampire? 

It’s a tough one. And there isn’t a simple answer to any of it. Ask Eric, and he’d probably tell you he is glad of those 1,000 years, but would that be entirely and fully true? Wouldn’t he at least wonder a little?

And by wonder, I don’t mean the Bill-type, pseudo existential crisis of the “woe is me!” variety. I mean that Eric has to think, now and then, of “what if.” What if there is a Valhalla? And what if he was supposed to be reunited with his family there? Not that he would sit and dwell on this for hours on end, but he is a thinking person. It has to have occurred to him at some points in his life.  

Of course it has occurred to him, and he must have spared more than a thought about whether it has really been a good thing for him, being turned into a vampire. Eric’s whole human life, after his family was murdered, was entirely dedicated to war and revenge. We don’t know much about those years: in some dvd extra they say Eric was a rogue warrior, if I remember correctly, but who knows. He might have gathered his father’s soldiers and formed a little army, for what we know. Anyway, vampirism has given him the chance to experience much more than that, to travel the world, to learn a lot. Eric is nothing but a survivalist and a capitalist, and he knew how to make the best of what he was given. But of course he must have been thinking about afterlife.

I think it’s not entirely fair to pigeonhole vampirism as innatural, point blank. They do exist; they are part of nature themselves. Godric, at the end of his life, said they “don’t belong here”. But Eric was right, they are here. They live, even if they aren’t alive. They think. They feel. And they aren’t immortals. There will be an end even for Eric. And there’s a chance he will find his Valhalla, then. I don’t believe for a second that vampires are soulless.

I definitely don’t think they are soulless at all. However, I don’t necessarily believe they are a natural part of nature either. We don’t know how vampires came to be in the Trueblood universe, but in a lot of other stories they are the product of some kind of magic gone wrong. Further, I think the show has dropped a lot of hints over the years that there is something not totally right about their existence. Godric believed it and Ghost Gran said it too. Further, so many of the older vampires are obviously losing it, even Eric sometimes. I think it could be because they are now outside of the natural cycle of life and death and people arn’t meant to live like that. 

I don’t necessarily think there is a “natural cycle” in a supernatural reality. Godric, for all his higher plane thinking, wasn’t right. He was right to question it, of course, but his conclusions were so utterly defeatist and his argument that “we did not evolve” doesn’t hold water. For one thing, by these standards, neither did humans. Humanity is still as vicious as it was from the beginning, we only learned more cunning ways to go about it. But that’s no argument for all humans committing suicide, no more than it is an argument for all vampires to take Godric way out.

For that matter, the “we” Godric used did not apply to all vampires. Not even all vampires present in that room.

Yes, they lose it occasionally, but Godric didn’t go insane, he just grew disenchanted. And Eric lost it (if “losing it” is seeing Godric’s ghost) once, under tremendous stress and pain. It was a hallucination, not mental disintegration. He is as sharp as ever mentally. Russell is utterly insane, of course, but he was that at least 1,000 years back, when he slaughtered Eric’s family, and probably long before that. 

It’s not a question of whether they belong or not as a species on this planet. Eric is right: they are here, they belong. It’s a question of whether each individual one of them would have been better off dying. And the answer to it is probably as varied as each given person. Some would have been. And some were gone before their time, so it’s at least a toss-up. And others were taken from a horrible place and placed in a better one. Those are the gainers. 

It’s a tough issue, but it’s not a simple one. 

Intriguing discussion. I saw Godric’s “we don’t belong here, we’re not right” as not so much being about whether vampires should be exempt from aging and death. I thought he believed vampires were unnatural because they are parasites upon their own species. They both reproduce and feed by “consuming” human beings. Add to that the warped vampire view of humanity as mindless cattle, who can be abused or exploited however vampires see fit (see the magister’s charming commentary at Bill’s tribunal). These attitudes underlie most vampire behavior towards human beings. It is no wonder Godric is horrified and guilt-ridden.

The parasitic nature of the vampire is perhaps the most disturbing and unnatural part of its existence. It is why the legends of vampirism were so unnerving that they survived for centuries. The idea of the dead preying upon and consuming the living expresses deep-seated fears (zombies are simply another expression of this primordial terror). Godric’s comment upon their unnaturalness reflects this unsettling idea. How can it be natural to eat your own species (cannibalism)?  

True Blood is always eager to show both sides of any issue, though, so there are aspects of the show’s mythology about vampires that contradict this idea that vampires are essentially evil, unnatural parasites. Vampire blood heals humans. The vampire’s blood will also make the human attracted to the vampire, and allow the vampire to track humans and sense their emotions. This suggests a more profound relationship than simple parasitism. A parasite lives off its host and contributes nothing. A symbiont, if you remember your biology, has a more complex relationship with its host. Symbionts feed off their hosts, but also offer benefits in exchange. Vampires and humans have complementary strengths and weaknesses (in the show mythology) that suggest a symbiotic relationship is possible.

Take the issue of physical prowess. A vampire is stronger and faster than a human being, with sharper senses and special abilities. Vampires heal much more quickly, and can survive more physical trauma. But they do have unique weaknesses. Sunlight kills them, while humans can move freely from night to day. Silver weakens them significantly. They only thrive on one natural food (human blood), while humans can eat a huge variety of foods, plant and animal.

Theoretically, a vampire could feed from and protect a human or humans, without killing its host(s). The vampire would benefit from food it doesn’t have to hunt (and risk dying for) and protection during the daytime, while the human(s) would benefit from the vampire’s superior strength and healing blood. Emotionally, the vampire could enjoy vicariously experiencing the intense emotions of human beings (that was Isabel’s reason for dating Hugo) while humans could enjoy the aphrodisiacal and intoxicating qualities of the vampire’s blood (see Jason and Amy, or Eric and Sookie for the benefits of that). It’s a relationship fraught with potential difficulties, but the show suggests it’s possible.

Godric is guilt-ridden because vampires have not sought to become less parasitic and more symbiotic over the centuries of his existence, but have become ever more predatory and vicious. He attempts to atone for vampire sins (his own and all others) in a manner consciously based upon Christian theology—he’s going to allow himself to be sacrificed by his enemies. He hopes this will in some way repair relations between human and vampire, while freeing him from an immortality that has grown increasingly onerous. He hopes this will also assuage some of his own guilt.

I personally feel that vampires are no more unnatural than mosquitos, viruses, or wolves. Just because a creature preys on other creatures, even its own species, does not make it unnatural. Nature encompasses a huge variety of different survival strategies, many of them unpleasant. Eric is right to point out that calling vampires unnatural does nothing to solve the problem—they ARE here. You deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it would be.

Yet I understand why Godric would feel deeply guilty, and I certainly agree with him that vampire society needs to change. The ways they behave toward humans are not just unethical, but counter-productive. They inspire fear and violence in humans. And since humans vastly outnumber vampires, and are free from that pesky sun allergy, all-out war between human and vampire would almost certainly result in vampire annihilation. They also aren’t thriving under the current regime. That statistic Bill quotes, that two-thirds of vampires don’t survive their first year, is not indicative of a healthy, flourishing society. Vampires, despite their formidable individual powers, are not necessarily successful as a species. Even if they won a war, it would be impossible to exterminate the enemy—they need us to eat and reproduce. 

Terrific analysis! And the last part pretty much says it all. For the relationship between vampires and humans to become more “natural” — and, as a result, for the vampires as a species to be sustained — it needs to become more symbiotic. 

28 Nov 11 @ 12:49 am  —  via + org  —  reblog
To Love is To Bury

unreconstructedfangirl:

Something good!

hollygreenandstuff:

I just read this amazing little essay, right in the middle of, of all places, an episode review of True Blood on Television without Pity.  The writer, Jacob Clifton, breaks in the middle of the synopsis to tell us his thoughts about why our culture is so obessessed with Vampire/Werewolf literature and how this relates to our failures and declines in post-feminist movement society.  So I’m sharing it here, because you all should read it, because it’s really good.

To Love is To Bury

I think there are two main reasons our entire pop culture at the moment is consumed by vampire boyfriend/werewolf boyfriend. The first is that we’re only afraid of three things — sex, death and life — and we’ll do anything with our imaginations to cross from here to there to feel safer around them. Vampires = sex + death (an end to a start, the joy in being consumed utterly, burned alive; to be awake when the world is sleeping and thus asleep when the world is awake; to be dead to the world) and werewolf guys = sex + life (overly lush, too accepting, too much like life on V, fucking in the garbage and the sunlight).  

The second one, though, and it’s kind of central to this episode, has to do with feminism, particularly our generation’s bizarre experience of feminism as culture speeds up. Vampires, in this particular brand of literature, are paternalistic/”protective,” seductive/”mind-controlling,” bad boys-except-with-you types; like keeping a tiger in the kitchen, or Tank Girl, they’re the giant scary thing that loves only you and can kill everyone else. And then there’s the werewolf guy, who just wants to romp around all romantical and dedicate himself to you utterly and says “More life! More sex! More fun! Love who you are! Get lost in it!”  

And for those of us who make a habit of sleeping with men, these are the ways we’re trained to respond to men: as cold and controlling authorities by virtue of their physical power, or as exuberantly terrifying, conspiratorial beasts lacking any sort of self-control. Vampires are nice because they are courtly, and old in the ways that count while being forever young and hot in the ways that really count, and rich, and do things like come zoom-running from miles away and holler about how you must be protected and stand outside your house all night, staring. Vampire guy can make you be turned on, so he removes any kind of sexual risk or shame; you never have to ask for it and if you do it’s because he made you want it; all you have to do is lie there and be penetrated. The downside is, they never ever go away.  

Werewolf guy is nice because he says, “If it feels good, do it!” Be super psychic, yell at Andy Bellefleur, make out when you wanna make out. Werewolf can guy can smell that you’re turned on, so you don’t ever have to admit it: he carries the sex monster for both of you. Werewolf guy knows better than you about the beast, because you’ve never been allowed to let your beast free. So he urges you to do so, and shows you how to do so, and it’s very fun and not very memorable because we don’t live in memory, we live now. He changes shape to be something closer to what you wanted, what you thought was perfect — the same way you change shape for vampire guy, because there are rules that must be followed. Vampire rules are the rules of the world and of the night, Saturnian and Jovian, hard and fast; werewolf guy rules are the rules of the heart. Downside is, they go away. Werewolf guy is just as fickle as you are, or would be if “fickle” were a word that applied to men, because werewolf guy is a horndog, who loves you eternally until he turns his head or else can eternally love any number of people in this world — which contrasts absolutely with the singlemindedness of vampire guy, who’s crossed oceans of time, who’s been waiting… Oh, just hundreds of years for somebody just like you. Vampire guy conspires with time itself.  

So you’re a girl, or a boy, and the world keeps throwing guys at you, and some of them are like this and some of them are like that, and every time you’re thinking: Is he the one? The one I would actually change things around for? Or is the one to romp around with? The entire universe works on the twinned principles of compression and inflation, repression and abandon, structure and chaos, endings and beginnings. It’s not about making the choice between vampire guy and werewolf guy, it’s about the fact that these are the only two ways we know how to deal with men, because we were born at a particularly effed-up time where our mothers’ feminist ideals are flexing and bending to the breaking point and we’re not seeing our mothers walk the walk. Because their dogma was invented by them, as received wisdom, in the decades surrounding our birth, we watched it fall apart around them. Our hearts broke together, ours and our mothers, when we found out how the world really worked.  

The original vanguard said, “Stop locking us up at night. Let us go out into the world and see what we must see, and do what we must do. We can and will protect ourselves, but we’ll never know for sure until you stop treating us like girls and start understanding that we are women, which is the same thing as being a person.” They were werewolf days and howling nights, women shapeshifting before each other’s eyes, exploring what they could be with and for men and what they could be with and for each other. For the first time since like agrarian times, women assumed shared control of the cultural narrative: Carole King writes “He Hit Me (It Felt Like A Kiss)” in the Brill Building in 1962, and nobody actually gets it. The days and nights of the counterculture are chronicled by men who write like women and women who write like men. Bodies are redefined and rewritten, what they mean and to whom they belong, new ways and laws are created, men and women bleed into each other, exchanging secrets and telling stories and realizing that 90% of boy-girl bullshit is just an illusion handed down from the people before.  

Fast-forward to the ’90s, and you’ve got “may I touch your left breast” at Dartmouth; “sexual harassment” being applied to literally every circumstance possible; diluting and obscuring its own once-valid complaint; girls of my generation saying, “Fucking lock me up. This world is scary, sex is scary and my safety is an illusion, pornography is violence, sex is evil, I get it now, I repent, I’m sorry for questioning the patriarchy, please give me my bra back.” Our culture was invaded by forces from beyond the pale, by diseases so powerful they seemed magical, and we worshipped at their shrine in a way: by becoming ever more obsessed with blood, with sex, with death, with taint, equating blood and sex and death into a single objective correlative for the fact that sex is scary, always, and somehow we forgot that for just long enough to fall in love with the idea of being scared of sex itself. Gay sex, which is like scary with a little scary on top anyway, intersected with this stuff in a remarkably unlucky way; our vampires went bisexual as a result. Vampire nights and the rotting carpet of a culture in decline, obsessed with its own decay and dancing to goth music in the last big vampire fad, calling every day Halloween and calling for the death of sex itself in reaction to the sterility and the fear and the desperate need for somebody, anybody, to explain what the fuck was going on.  

The literature here deals with this dichotomy — how you deal with the darker sides of masculinity in the post-Bly post-’90s sexual anarchy we’ve wandered into — in different ways. Those Anita Blake books deal with it by turning the woman into a third, inherently feminine creature of darkness, a succubus, equal in power to the two operating male archetypes. Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight books get really weird with it pretty early on, but basically frame the werewolf/vampire triangle as a basic coming-of-age story in which both versions of masculinity are necessary in order to fully awaken the woman’s sexual maturity, flowing into and out of each other and breaking down the walls between them even as she’s taking on the roles and habits of everybody else, like every teenager. Harris, in the source material, works the triangle as a negotiation with darkness, making both suitors passports into the areas of darkness necessary to reclaim all territory, dark and light, for herself. To me, this seems healthiest, but they’re all the same kind of myth.

Why’s it happening again? Why on earth is our culture playing out entirely vampire boyfriend/werewolf boyfriend right now? And I’m not just saying this because Twlight came out yesterday — these three series of books I’m talking about started in 1993 (Anita), 2001 (Sookie), and 2005 (Twilight) and pretty much have ruled the bestseller lists since then, even with the variances in quality, readability and WTF between them; seven of the eight Sookie novels are bestsellers pretty much nonstop, which is not something that ever happened before. I think it’s pretty easy if you follow the line of blood: The war and the Greatest Generation’s reassignment and recapitulation of gender roles becomes the uphill battle of the ’50s and the glorious global shout of the ’60s becomes the delirious sexual abandon of the ’70s becomes the cruelty and sexual artifice of the ’80s becomes the total AIDS-related sexual freakout of the ’90s … and we grew up in that, doing the incredibly dangerous undercover work of becoming healthy sexual beings that people have been doing since there were people, with all that crazy on top, mediated for the first time by television telling us back to ourselves in realtime and the endless fucking Baby Boomer retellings and nostalgia and music videos disguised as feature films. We became men and women in the middle of that shitstorm. Vampire Guy/Werewolf Guy is just us telling that story back to the world and trying to decide what to do next.

Do you want to be married, do you want to enter into a static world where the choices have been made and the growing has been done and the living can start? Does a part of you get off on the idea of being a good wife, of being in control of yourself and your home to such a degree that the balance of power in the house can shift around whenever you feel like it? Do you want to be tied up in the darkness, arms around you as tight as death’s, and know that you are finally safe? To love is to bury, do you want to be buried? Half the time. Exactly half the time.

Do you want to be just like a man? Roaming the night, fucking at will, being open and honest, without any ties at all? Do you want to escape the tyranny of relationships and demands and live on your own, like a beast, plant a garden and watch it grow, feed the cat, sleep with just everybody in the whole world? Do you want to try fucked up sex things that maybe you can’t look the person in the eye for awhile, but you can laugh about it eventually? Would you like to live in a world where nobody judges you or says that words reserved for women who make their own choices? Wouldn’t you love, for once, to make the call and honestly know there are no social repercussions, no psychological tell, no evidence of past trauma, or tiny little shame in the back corner? To love is to be taken apart and put back together better, do you want to be ripped apart? Half the time.

Because, you know, those are the only things you’re allowed to want. Men that act like fathers, men that act like brothers. There are no other men in this world, we’ve been told our entire lives; men are objects to be feared, and they are objects you put into your life for certain reasons and to have certain effects. Vampires don’t have souls. Werewolf guy has a soul but it doesn’t even make sense and it has ADD anyway. And there you are, this rational boy or girl, confronted with their beautiful faces and fucked-up rationales, having to make a choice about what you’re going to put in your life, and why. And that’s not optimal — because people all have the gift of subjectivity no matter how you treat them — but it’s a hell of a lot better to know you have options (including getting over this dichotomy altogether) and it’s comforting to know that the entire publishing economy, in a very real way, right now rests on the idea of our culture collaboratively trying to process this vampire guy/werewolf guy phenomenon so we can move on to whatever the next (even more WTF) thing will be.

(I’m going to say that whatever it is, the male Quest of Harry Potter is going to swing into alignment with the female concerns of VG/WWG, and what you’ll be seeing in the next decade is going to be hero stories about girls, specifically instead of having these arbitrary Team Edward/Team Jacob blockheaded icons thrown in her path, more like Sookie than anything else, where the obstacles are mostly the girl’s own bullshit rather than the freeform hysterical derangement about relationships that has come to characterize popular literature from chick lit to S&TC to He’s Just Not That Into You, which gigantic chunk of our cultural landscape right now, when considered from the outside, looks screaming-meemie amounts of crazy. The regrettable thing about the post-ironic cycle we’re about to hit is that self-obsession is the price you pay for earnestness, so, paradoxically you get more done for other people by focusing your hard work on yourself, unless you’re doing it as a way around actually focusing on yourself. Which is inevitably what will happen, and then we’ll all have to look around for a new way to fix ourselves/go crazy.) I guess it just comes down to the fact you’re either loved or your forgotten, and this mad dash to be on the list of people who are loved is responsible for really bad judgment calls. To love is to raise, up into heaven; but to love is also to bury.

That’s a very interesting observation. As much as I hate TWOP (for its blatantly lazy and cynical approach to everything), I appreciate Jacob Clifton’s writing, sometimes precisely because he takes a decidedly not cynical view. 

This isn’t to say that I agree entirely with what he writes (or even with what he writes in this piece). But he raises these questions that go deeper than the usual, mind-numbingly innate clamor of “so-and-so character is a bitch, and this-or-that character is dreamy, or those-n’-their are boring.” 

This is definitely worth a read and some thinking. 

11 Dec 11 @ 2:35 pm  —  via + org  —  reblog
To Love is To Bury

unreconstructedfangirl:

stillhidden:

unreconstructedfangirl:

Something good!

hollygreenandstuff:

I just read this amazing little essay, right in the middle of, of all places, an episode review of True Blood on Television without Pity.  The writer, Jacob Clifton, breaks in the middle of the synopsis to tell us his thoughts about why our culture is so obessessed with Vampire/Werewolf literature and how this relates to our failures and declines in post-feminist movement society.  So I’m sharing it here, because you all should read it, because it’s really good.

To Love is To Bury

SNIP

… what you’ll be seeing in the next decade is going to be hero stories about girls, specifically instead of having these arbitrary Team Edward/Team Jacob blockheaded icons thrown in her path, more like Sookie than anything else, where the obstacles are mostly the girl’s own bullshit rather than the freeform hysterical derangement about relationships… 

That’s a very interesting observation. As much as I hate TWOP (for its blatantly lazy and cynical approach to everything), I appreciate Jacob Clifton’s writing, sometimes precisely because he takes a decidedly not cynical view. 

This isn’t to say that I agree entirely with what he writes (or even with what he writes in this piece). But he raises these questions that go deeper than the usual, mind-numbingly innate clamor of “so-and-so character is a bitch, and this-or-that character is dreamy, or those-n’-their are boring.” 

This is definitely worth a read and some thinking. 

I’ve snipped out the part I think is interesting — I’m not sure I agree with all of it, either, though there are bits of things in there that seem very true — but I’ve been saying for ages that while a book like Twilight is a very poor work of art indeed, it is anthropologically interesting that it’s so popular, despite it’s insane blend of perverse sexuality and chaste-ness, or perhaps because of it. Similar forces are at work in Vampire Diaries and True Blood (and elsewhere!) with their girl protagonists with their love problems, and I do think this is all a manifestation of feminism and it’s profound effect on our society that so many stories of such huge popularity are women’s hero stories with mythical creatures for lovers.

Male hero stories have been told and retold from the dawn of time, but figuring out in narrative what a woman needs to do and be to become herself is a relatively new development — not begun by these particular stories, but certainly, they are manifestations of the phenomenon. The men in them are soul images — animus figures with archetypal resonance, and that’s what makes them so compelling to us. Even reading that Wikipedia entry, though, shows how little the notion has been explored, and having read Jung’s work, I can confirm: he barely gives feminine psychology passing mention.

All of it reminds me of Joseph Campbell’s quote: “Dreams are private myths; myths are public dreams.” I started this blog originally because I feel like, when something grabs you, and you fall in love with a mythical creature, or an imaginary man, it’s worth thinking about why he enthralls you so. We’re all dreaming of Eric, and we (or I) self-deprecatingly call ourselves fangirls, but I think there’s so much more to it than that.

There’s absolutely more to it than that. And I like your take on Twilight as “anthropologically interesting.” Not as an admirable work of fiction, but as an impetus behind something like this. 

True, historically there are a lot more female-centric storytelling now than it ever used to be. And also true, it’s not a clear-cut development. A lot of “admired” female characters are the so-called “warriors.” Nothing wrong with kicking ass, of course, but at the bottom of it, you have to wonder if it isn’t a bit of a desire for a female hero who is “just like a man.” And I have to wonder what it says about our perception of a heroic or a “quest” for self-identity in the first place. 

I am not going to go on a dissertation here (goodness knows, I could), but there is a wealth of interesting psychological and anthropological issues to explore. 

11 Dec 11 @ 3:12 pm  —  via + org  —  reblog
To Love is To Bury

unreconstructedfangirl:

stillhidden:

SNIP…

There’s absolutely more to it than that. And I like your take on Twilight as “anthropologically interesting.” Not as an admirable work of fiction, but as an impetus behind something like this. 

True, historically there are a lot more female-centric storytelling now than it ever used to be. And also true, it’s not a clear-cut development. A lot of “admired” female characters are the so-called “warriors.” Nothing wrong with kicking ass, of course, but at the bottom of it, you have to wonder if it isn’t a bit of a desire for a female hero who is “just like a man.” And I have to wonder what it says about our perception of a heroic or a “quest” for self-identity in the first place. 

I am not going to go on a dissertation here (goodness knows, I could), but there is a wealth of interesting psychological and anthropological issues to explore. 

Well, and I think a lot of the reason so many people can’t love Sookie is part of all this. If she were simply a kickass warrior or a virtuous girl, we could accept her or admire her without conflict, but as it stands, she is feeling her way in fits and starts. Sometimes she is wonderfully tough and/or virtuous, and other times she is making bad life choices, loving the wrong man while spurning the right one, doing dirty things, saying things that aren’t strictly speaking true, and in general, looking like a woman who really doesn’t know what the path is to becoming who she is meant to be. I love her for this, and identify with it… It makes me happy that without her two vampire swains, she might be on a road to her own, unfiltered self-actualisation — it makes her quite literally a “hero” that she has done this. It also makes it easy to see why she is hard to love for so many who are trying to force an amoeba-shaped peg into one of two round holes.

That’s exactly what I meant when I talked about female “hero” identity. About what we are conditioned to want, and what we do want. And about the wish-fulfillment vs. an actual deeper look into the nature of our wishes. The reason I love Sookie is precisely because she isn’t an “amoeba-shaped peg.” That she is contradictory, irrational, sometimes weak and sometimes strong, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, sometimes selfish and other times self-sacrificing, sometimes heroic and sometimes far from it. That she is, in short, a human being that doesn’t fit a set pattern. And that it has less to do with the vampires, weres, or any other supes in her life, and more to do with the reality of what it means to be a person. 

11 Dec 11 @ 3:36 pm  —  via + org  —  reblog
Immortality vs. Mortality

Submitted by http://maggiesview.tumblr.com/:

Earlier there were a series of posts about the vampires who are immortal (although in a limited way since they can be killed) and the  others on the show who are mortal. The question arose about whether vampires tended to withdraw and become aloof from humans due to not wanting to suffer the pain of loss when they eventually died. Along with this question others were posed. Here is my take on this issue.

I think on TB the question of coldness toward humans on the part of vampires may be one of distrust from a long history of being hunted and staked by humans (for good reason) rather than due to any fears about emotional pain due to loss of a loved one when he or she dies. I think this because there are characters both vampire and human (immortal and mortal) who due to their own personality and philosophy  tend to stand back and watch. They remove themselves from events  and those who participate in them manipulting others for self interest (a la Bill, Alcide, Marnie, Maryanne and lately Sam). They manipulate  others to their own interests rather than truly becomming involved with them and actively participating in their lives. They do this because of weakness and insecurtiy, wanting to always know first if they will win rather than just taking the risk and plunging right in.

Some of you may disagree about my inclusion of Sam but I do not see him as proactive or a risk taker, less and less as each season progresses. All of these characters suffer the consequences of their own refusal to become involved with others and with events around them. Bill, by the end of season 4 has lost Sookie, his kingdom, and Jessica. He is friendless and without status of any kind. Sookie is the only one who has some residue feelings left for him. He really is pathetic and pitiful.

Alcide is so uninvolve that most of us preferred Debbie over him and blamed him for much of her obsessiveness. Although she was crazy, she was passionate and she loved. He is so removed as to appear wooden and most of us see no sexual allure to him although JM is very hot as a person. I am not so sure it is his lack of acting abilities that are causing this wooden and often stilted persona so much as it is the character he is playing who up until now remains aloof from the affairs of everyone. Perhaps he will interact more with Sookie in S5 and she will humanize him and bring him into the chaotic, ever churning messiness that is her life. If not, things will not go well for Alcide.

Marnie was not much of a villainous unless Antonia was in charge. Marnie had a very poor self image and sought only to manipulate the witches in her coven rather than loving them and taking care of them. She eventually went so far off the deep end  in her pursuit of winning and gaining a sense of her own self with that Antonia became disgusted and left her. Marnie paid the price for her  removal from life with her own life.So it went with Maryanne, as well, who although a virtual immortal naed, cared for nothing and no one accept her own delusion of acceptance from a fictional god like being. She was dispensed with as well. Sam did not start out as a character that was aloof and withdrawn since he was such a good friend a supporter of Sookies. However, a closer look will show that although he owns and operates Merlottes which is a central gathering ground for the residence of Bon Temp he does not involve himself with them or their lives. He stands aloof. Although we see that his attachment to Sookie is more than just freindship, he does not declare himself to her and stands by and watches. He hides his shapeshifter identity from all and his family. Even when Tommy and his parents come back into his life he is not able to make any deep connections with Tommy which may have saved Tommy. He tries out different girlfriends, even Tara, but makes no real connections because he does not make that deep emotional commitment. Instead he plays with Luna’s daughter.

Sam needs to grow and become involved before bad things happen to him. As we saw in S 4, bad things happened to Tara, who let her own insecurities and horrifying experiences with Franklin make her so terrified that she withdrew from everyone she previously loved and hid in the coven hoping for some kind of strength from the others. She never really connects with them and finds herself so lost by the end of S4 that getting shot in the head seemed a mercy. Characters who disengage, immortal or mortal become miserable and lose or die. In attempting to avoid the pain of commitment and loss, they end up loosing-all that they value or life itself.

On the other hand we see characters such as Sookie, Eric, Russel, Laffayette, Jason and Jessica who do not fear loss and who jump right into the thick of things, taking risks and becoming involved. Eric has been very involved with his business and being Sheriff along with his feelings for Godric and Pam. As we see he is attracted to Sookie and goes for her, even when he tells himself it is just a sex thing , he still goes after her. He does not think about Bill and her love for him wondering if he even stands a chance with her because of it. His wooing of her is hilarious at times, often overbearing and at times profound when he buys her house, fixes it up and tells her when she returns from fairy ” I never gave up on you”. Russel was a great villain because he was so committed and involved. He took huge risks and flew in the face of the Authority and AVL when he murdered the Magistrar and slaughtered the newscaster on TV. You just had to love his big, bad bold strokes. His deep commitment and love for Talbot for 800 years also endeared him to us.I did not want him to win and I saw he was clearly the “Big Bad” but I was so facinated by him that I wanted him to somehow live. And he did. AB did not kill him off. Most of us can’t wait to see him next season because he is so involved and takes risks which could cost him life in spite of being a vampire and immortal.

Jason is pure passion on a stick and he has grown from his horn dog self into a young man who is admirable in his abilities to stretch his mind and accept others who are differnent. He accepts the vampires and takes Jessica as a lover. He accepts Sookie and her relationship with first Bill and then Eric. He accepts Crystal and her shape shifting family and tires to care for them. Jason is so caring and unconcerned with loosing anyone and protecting his inner self from pain and loss that we find ourselves rooting for him although we know he is engaged in something really stupid that won’t end well. He survives, however, each and every time and grows and changes.That is because on TB is is not about being immortal or mortal but more about being committed, involved , loving and opening yourself up to the often messy and heartbreaking stuff of life. Characters who are engaged survive and grow. They retain what they value most which is the spirit of life and even though they may experience the loss of a loved one such as Laffy with Jesus or Eric with Godric-they go on living and loving.

I think Sookie is the most engaged of all of the characters on TB. She is the essence of love and life. She is the one with the “light” and hers is a spirit that not only loves life but gives freely of herself and her love without asking questions. She jumps into the messy stew of life head first and revels in it.Is this wise? Of course not. Is this smart? No way Will she get hurt? Believe it.Will she learn and give it up? Let’s hope not. The strength of Sookie as AB perceives her, is not in her head but in her heart. She is not to be perceived by us as some dumb bimbo because she is not analytical, suspicious,and self protective. She is to be perceived by us as a being who is love itself and who shines such a light that all are aware of it to some degree and attracted by it. Sookie is the only character who accepts all the supes for who they are and who actively involves herself with them. 

Is it any wonder then the Eric with his “joi de vive” is immediately attracted to her and senses the light in her. I don’t think it was the fae in her but the light of love in her that drew him right from the beginning. Even Bill, who originally saught to bind her so he could procure her for SA , eventually succumbs to that light and warms his cold soul in the warmth of her love (not to mention her fae blood) Alcide is facinated with her and wants her. So does Sam. The supes are drawn to her while the humans were distant and afraid of her because she could read their minds. She still loves them though and seeks to help in any way she can.

In light of this view of TB and this theme of love of life, it would seem most likely at this point that Eric is her match and her mate. He is the only character capable of matching her. His “joi de vive” and hers are twins of each other. His warrior spirit and hers are a match The honesty, loyalty and willingness to jump in and lose for the sake of a loved one are parallel and equal as well. The only thing that separates them is that Eric has been practicing so long and distancing himself from the affairs of humans and the affairs of vampires that he is going to have catch up as he thaws out and become involved. We know he will have to involve  himself in vampire affairs next season and we can only guess at how the affairs of humans will be drawn into it all. Perhaps the political lines will be polarized around the human question. We know the AVL wants acceptance into the human world but Russel and his kind definitely do not. Perhaps it will be something else. Howver, I see Eric being drawn into human affairs and committing to them where in the past he withdrew and held them at a distance.

I just don’t see Bill as a viable choice. Even if he comes around and gains some redemption, I don’t see him ever being able to catch up to Eric and hence to Sookie. There is a fundamental character flaw in Bill that was there before he was made into a vamp, that caused him to be so enthralled to Lorena and even after gaining some degree of independence from her, he was still a procurer for SA ( a nice way of saying a pimp) which is not a very admirable position. Even his mission to Bon Temp which was undertaken to scout out Sookie and obtain her for SA was secretive in a sinister way. While in Bon Temp, he kept aloof from everyone and did not initiate anything on his own accept to addict Sookie to his blood and him to hers. This then is his big self actualizing “thing”.

Creating a dual addiction. Jessica is quite a being to behold and he made her but he was forced to do it so he gets no credit for her creation. All he did afterward was try to give her away. He was wishy washy and ineffectual from episode 1 season1 clear through to the end of S4. I see all of this as a result of a character flaw which although tied to his inability to embrace life and love, goes beyond it and deeper than it,having more to do with who he is as a person than his philosophy of life.

Immortal or mortal characters on TB are defined by their willingness to suffer loss be it of a loved one or their own life. 

Great observations here! I will definitely come back with comments, because this deserves a lot of attention. But I wanted to post this for people to read. 

—Stillhidden

07 Jan 12 @ 12:08 am  —  reblog
Reblogging, and then Rambling a bit…

lovetrueblood:

444industrialdrive:

lovetrueblood:

lightfromthestar:

SNIP

I would like to add that I too find it interesting that the entire time Eric has amnesia he stays very close to Sookie. At the same time, it wasn’t that surprising to see it play out in the show, because it happens this way in the books. Sookie is protecting Eric when he is his most vulnerable, and in that, as we can see from previous encounters, she is affectionate toward him. She was upset when he was saying goodbye to her when he believed he would die, and now she feels compelled to hide and comfort him when he is not his full self. I’d like to point to the books again, in order to offer another reason for Eric staying close to her throughout these scenes. Eric learns in the books that the spell cast on him sent him to seek out his true love, which is why he is walking down the road near Sookie’s house, seemingly lost until they meet. Now that he isn’t flooded with all of his responsibilities, his only desire is to find happiness, security, and love, things that I think he has deprived himself for many of his vampire years, simply because he did not have time to deal with them. It becomes clear that this may have been the case when in the books, he finally remembers what happened when he had amnesia, and he and Sookie go a long time without having time to discuss what happened between them. In contrast, on the show, they are granted a moment to discuss the entire situation, because he immediately got all of his memory back. This was probably done to speed things along a bit for the show.. and honestly I liked both the book and the show’s depictions. I think that the entire situation served as a lesson to Eric, that he is missing out on several things in life, and that he has been failing at balancing his vampire desires and his human desires. He has spent all of his time before the amnesia trying to maintain his responsibilities, and although he has feelings and compassion for Sookie, he does not take the time to explain himself to her. When he has amnesia, he has no choice but to face the feelings that he’s been repressing or ignoring for quite a while.. and lucky for Sookie, he doesn’t have to balance his emotional happenings with his vampire duties because he cannot remember his duties. Then, when he does have his memory back, he immediately takes the time to sit down with Sookie and evaluate her feelings on his having his memory back, as well as to tell her how he feels now that he is his full self again. He has clearly gained something from the experience. He has perhaps remembered a human part of himself, and will hopefully let go of the inhumane brutal vampire who tortures Lafayette in a dungeon.

This is a lovely comment, so I wanted to send it here to LTB. I especially love the way it gives Eric full responsibility for his feelings and response to them — I think that’s important. If redemption is in the cards for him, it can’t be because of Sookie — it has to be the redemptive power of what he feels and how it transforms him.

I am pretty certain that we’re going to have some moments of uncertainty with Eric in the future. He isn’t going to just become an uncomplicated white knight after this, I don’t think. I do think, though, that being cruel and heartless is going to be a lot harder for him, because he isn’t heartless now, and he knows it. He wasn’t heartless before, either, but he’d buried that part of himself that made those kinds of judgements in favor of survival and duty. Eric responds positively to judgement, both before, during and after his amnesia. He wants to bear the weight of who he is, what he feels, and what he’s done, and he wants to be forgiven and loved, even if only by Sookie. Sookie’s love alone is enough to redeem him, but he has to earn it.

This is going off into another area, but this makes me think about the way Sookie forgave Bill, despite the fact that he is unworthy and did not ask for it, but she pointedly did not forgive Eric. She accused him harshly of lying, he took it on the chin, and then she told him that he was vicious and untrustworthy, and that the goodness in him breaks her heart. That can only be because she still sees it as an anomaly — as something in him that is overpowered by the reality of who he has been the whole time she’s known him. I think we really have to remember that we know Eric so much better than Sookie does — can she really be blamed for not understanding what a cataclysm it is for him to feel love? I don’t think so.

Bill gets her forgiveness because that’s all she can do to not carry him with her — to let him go, once and for all and distance herself emotionally from him. From our point of view in the audience, she doesn’t judge him harshly enough, but really, what good would it do for her to continue to hold onto any anger at him? He is what he is, he isn’t going to change, and their relationship is over. Eric, though, she holds to a higher standard, judges too harshly, and does not forgive. Eric has to change. His love has to change him, and until it does and we see this in his actions, Sookie can’t be his.

Oh my God, you guys, I cannot wait for the continuation of this story. I love it so much! <3<3<3

—Unreconstructed Fangirl

This is all so great, I can’t see any way to contribute to this further than to add some notes…

“Eric learns in the books that the spell cast on him sent him to seek out his true love, which is why he is walking down the road near Sookie’s house, seemingly lost until they meet.”

I can’t tell you how tormented I felt at first when I realized Eric had retained all of his memories- the entire point of him not retaining them in the books -as far as plotlines go- was that so he would have a reason to first keep his distance from Sookie (with the uncertainty of loss of control for Mr. Big Viking Kahuna) and at the same time give him an excuse to see her (“Sookieeeeee seriously come on please just be cool. BE COOL. Tell me what happened. We had sex right? Please tell me we had sex. Actually no- if we had sex and I can’t remember it I’m going to stab myself in the heart with a pencil. GODDAMMIT.”). And on Hallow/Marnie’s side of it, the whole point of giving him amnesia was so that he eventually would get his memories back, but never know that he’d known real happiness. (But of course with the way they did it on the show, we get to see Eric struggle with integrating the lessons he’s learned as AE with the Viking while trying to deal with everything else going on around him. But even in the midst of all this confusion- his primary focus remains Sookie.)

This all raises an interesting question though: Had the same spell been cast as in the books and Sookie’s being the one to break it allowed him to keep his memories of when he had amnesia, or was it a different spell altogether? If it’s the latter, then how did Eric wind up walking down Hummingbird lane? Was there something deep in his subconscious just pointing him in that direction? Things to consider!

I actually can see this being a similar curse.  Plus, as noted in a previous post (by you, I believe) there was the teaser that had Eric talking about his “heart’s desire”. I don’t think that’s done accidentally, and I can only hope that TB does a better job of exploring that concept than CH did in the books.

“Now that he isn’t flooded with all of his responsibilities, his only desire is to find happiness, security, and love, things that I think he has deprived himself for many of his vampire years, simply because he did not have time to deal with them.”

I think it goes beyond a packed schedule. Deep down, he thinks he’s damned. His own maker even says so in his dream. Now he’ll never even admit this to himself, his pride and innate “zest for life” won’t allow it, but he’ll always be striving to redeem himself in the way that’s most fitting of who he is. I know that’s very vague, but I’m trying to keep this under 1,000,000 words.

“He has clearly gained something from the experience. He has perhaps remembered a human part of himself, and will hopefully let go of the inhumane brutal vampire who tortures Lafayette in a dungeon.”

This may be one of the only things I disagree with. On True Blood, humanity is not necessarily a good thing. It’s often defined in subtle ways as selfishness and instability. If you were to go by Russell’s definition, to flaunt your humanity would be to have the most false, almost masochistic sense of pride in the world (if that makes much sense). Let’s just look at Bill: he’s grasping at whatever straws there are left of his humanity, and he’s become a twisted, confused, duplicitous because of it.

With Eric, I don’t bother describing who he is as extremely vampiric or in touch with his humanity. He’s well beyond those labels. Eric is Eric, he knows what he likes, and knows what he doesn’t like. For most of his existence, he’s adapted to situations for survival purposes but has never lost touch of who he is. There is no false sense of identity. Of course he’s had many revelations recently, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

So yes, we’ll definitely see less brutality from him to the x degree because of this part of him (not his humanity, him!!) that he’s reawakened.

I don’t necessarily think that TB is depicting humanity as something questionable. I think what they show us is the vampire’s or Bill’s perception of humanity, which isn’t necessarily correct.  Russell’s almost 3000 years old.  He’s so far removed from anything resembling humanity and all he feels is contempt for it.  I would imagine that survival for vampires might require denigrating what they’ve lost. As for Bill, I don’t think there’s anything truthful in his journey to find humanity. He uses that to manipulate Sookie, so I’m not convinced he’s sincere.

However, I think Sookie represents humanity, and based on that depiction, I think AB and company think very highly of humanity, indeed. Sookie is the moral compass for it and there’s really not a better steward. Her heart, her capacity for love, her capacity for forgiveness all favor humanity. 

As for Eric, I do think there’s a possibility he could be more in touch with his humanity because the journey he’s on is real. There’s nothing fake, there’s no manipulation. We saw the humanity that lives inside of him. It was genuine, and he’ll have to reconcile all facets of his character in the next season or two. We’ve also seen a subconscious desire for redemption. We’ve seen it in his dreams with Godric, both with and without the amnesia. I think he desires some measure of it and now that the “other” Eric is unlocked, I think it is now more a probability than a possibility.

Onto ReconstructedFangirl!

“I especially love the way it gives Eric full responsibility for his feelings and response to them — I think that’s important. If redemption is in the cards for him, it can’t be because of Sookie — it has to be the redemptive power of what he feels and how it transforms him.”

Yes, precisely!!! I believe there’s a saying like this somewhere: Changing yourself for someone else can only lead to resentment towards that person.

That second paragraph is prefection.

“This is going off into another area, but this makes me think about the way Sookie forgave Bill, despite the fact that he is unworthy and did not ask for it, but she pointedly did not forgive Eric.”

People are always hardest on those they care the most for, because they know they’ll stick around to take it. Eric has always been a rock for Sookie. Take your pick of the fights she’s gotten into that he’s been around to- when Sookie and Lorena were arguing at Godric’s, when Sookie was first brought back to Russell’s mansion, when she confronted Steve Newlin at the Fellowship, when Luke walked into Godric’s nest- Eric is always standing right behind her, always having her back. Most times he doesn’t even say anything, he just stands there looking threatening towards whoever’s opposing her (circumstances allowing of course, there are exceptions to everything).

“I think we really have to remember that we know Eric so much better than Sookie does”

True, I don’t think Sookie sits around her computer analyzing everything she’s ever seen/heard/read Eric do…. >_<

Yes…Eric is always there for Sookie, whether she realizes it or not. <3

-hsm7

21 Feb 12 @ 1:10 am  —  via + org  —  reblog

sarahmonster213:

Irrelevant: sarahmonster213: stillhidden replied to your chat: My brother takes…

sarahmonster213:

Put this way, your brother has a point! :)))

Oh, I readily accept that my view on men is skewed. They say whatever you become interested in around the age of 14 will direct your…

I actually got that logic from Criminal Minds, but I did a little googling on the subject and like most Reid logic on the show, it is a real theory.

It mostly has to do with music preference, because the hormones are so out of control at that stage of our life that we’re almost forced to feel more emotionally connected to the music and lyrics. So, while our tastes may change, and we may get into other styles or even give up what we first discovered at 13-14, we will never feel that deep of a connection with any other musical discovery.

And some theories say that because it’s the age that we start to pull from our parents influence, that it’s the age that most of our lifelong preferences are made. but, I don’t really buy into that for major decisions like politics, religion, etc.

But, I have to admit that my “pop culture” favs or genres haven’t changed much since 14. Those are still the things I have the most attachment to.

I am sure there’s some truth to it. We do form a lot of our preferences at specific ages. But I would venture a guess that, like every theory, there’s room for interpretation and maneuver. In other words, we seldom completely reverse our preferences once we form them, but we do grow, and we do expand our horizons, and we do get to see, with time and experience, that some things we found appealing at 14 aren’t necessarily things that we can or should love all our lives.

That “bad boy with a heart of gold” thing. That’s a very young preference. Partly because they seldom exist, and it becomes very clear as you grow older. :) That is, usually in life, a bad boy, if he doesn’t grow out of that, frankly annoying if carried too far, phase by the age he gets out of hight school, will remain a malcontent. And it’s only cute at a young age. No one should stay a “bad boy” past the age of 30. Preferably earlier. :)

Then there’s the heart of gold, carefully hidden by obnoxious attitude notion. That seldom happens in real life, too. A person, if they are kind, considerate, honest, have integrity — you’d know it without having to dig too deep. And 9 times out of 10, an obnoxious strutting asshole is just an obnoxious strutting asshole. He doesn’t hide any gold, in heart or mind. 

There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. I suspect that, if in reality you met a homicidal biker, a potential serial killer, etc., your own good sense will tell you to stay the hell away and not get close enough to even attempt to look for that hypothetical gold heart they may or may not be hiding. :)

But that’s not what you are attracted to, not really. The qualities that beacon in these characters are probably an edgy sense of humor, a certain “apartness” from the ordinary, an outer strength, and a hint of inner softness. All seductive things, and good luck finding that combination in reality. 

I suspect (no, I am pretty certain), that I am a lot older than you are. I can’t speak for everyone, and I wouldn’t dream to, but I can say for myself that the preferences I formed at 14 have been revised, and revisited, and rethought many a time since. Some of it stays with you. But a lot is let go of, either because it’s unrealistic or because we, too, are changing. 

Oy, sorry! Didn’t mean to write a dissertation. :)

06 Mar 12 @ 10:58 pm  —  via + org  —  reblog
#musings  

sarahmonster213:

sarahmonster213:

Irrelevant: sarahmonster213: stillhidden replied to your chat: My brother takes…

sarahmonster213:

Put this way, your brother has a point! :)))

Oh, I readily accept that…

Oh, no, don’t apologize, you know I love a good discussion!

I completely agree that I’m not really looking for the whole bad boy type. I actually think the reason that I love those sort of characters, and write those sort of characters, is because I see myself in them, not because I’m romantically attractive to them (other than the fact that all the actors are obviously attractive).

I’m an outsider, just like all these characters. They’re always struggling to fit into their little worlds. Being on the spectrum, I relate to not being readily accepted by the world at large for who I am, and having to prove myself. Or at least feeling like I need to prove myself. That’s why I always go for the anti-hero. It’s too easy for the traditional hero in books and movies, etc. I’m not the Will Smith cigar smoking person with a wisecrack on the ready.

I have a feeling that these types don’t really exist, either. :) That is a wish-fulfillment, and it’s understandably a wish, because no one is that in real life. No one (at least not to these degrees) is a “traditional” hero who struts into complex or life/death situations (or even easy social ones) with a wisecrack and a cigar. If they existed, they’d be insufferable. :)

By the same token, what we usually mean by “antihero” — especially pertaining to the characters you describe — aren’t really that. And antihero, by definition, is someone lacking heroic qualities. A protagonist, say, who proceeds to achieve his (often mercenary) goals by less-than-stellar means. Cheating, cowardly actions, lying. Or, at the very least, just your average shmo thrust into an extraordinary situation and dealing badly. 

The characters you (and I) love aren’t really that. They are heroic in their own ways, even when their goals are mercenary. They certainly aren’t cowards. What they are is self-serving (but only at first blush), anti-social (but only when it suits them), womanizing (but only until the “right” girl comes along), and there’s nothing ordinary or average about them.

The very reason we respond to them is, because they are, in fact, archetypal heroes, they are just disguised as something else, by a virtual, character-traits-cloaked Superman cape, if you will. 

I’m the sometimes bristly, don’t know how to act around humans, but usually have good intentions character.

I would say that’s most people. :)) I do understand the spectrum, though, (I have several people in my family), and this is a whole other conversation. The thing about these characters isn’t that they don’t know how to act around people. In fact, they can be very effective with that if they need be, if it suits their purposes. It’s that they, for various reasons, choose not to fit in. Certainly there are objective, organic obstacles there, as well. A vampire, say, would have a natural reason not to fit in with humans. A career biker with a gang — not so natural a reason, but a reason nonetheless. And so on. But it’s not a clinical thing with them. It’s not exactly like having an Asperger’s and having to learn social communication as if it were a foreign language. 

But I do get it: The very fact that they don’t fit in — by choice or by necessity — makes them appealing to most of us, because there are very few people who truly feel like they fit in, belong, or at ease with themselves and others. And, of course, it’s especially appealing for those of us with inherent difficulties with societal communications.

Romantically, in the real life, I’ve always gone for the dorky, sweet, awkward guy. But, I do always like guys a little outside the box and quirky, but that’s just because I’m so far outside the box myself.

I’m not sure how old you are, I’m 22.

Ahem…. I am, let’s just say, SOMEWHAT older than that. :)) 

The truth is, and I think I’ve mentioned this before, I came from a very volatile household, when my dad was healthy he was guilty of the whole gamut of domestic problems; adultery, abuse in all its forms, etc. And then I watched as most of my sisters fell for dudes who all acted the same. To the point where my 8 yr old nephew was holding a gun on his abusive step-father (which was my oldest sister’s, the most attached to my dad, 3rd abusive husband) so his mom could pack their stuff and leave without the step-dad freaking out on them. One of my niece’s (not the child of the mentioned sister) father is actually a very nice guy, but he’s spending 15 years in prison (not for anything violent). The sisters who have happy marriages, or who have happy relationships now after a few failed tries, all went for the dorks or for the sweet country boy, and it worked well for them. So, yeah, the bad boy thing never, ever works. For the long run, you gotta go for the Clark Kent/Boy Scout stereotype. Or find a happy medium that does exist in the real world.

I am so very sorry about this. That is a truly terrible situation to grow up in. Really, truly sorry! (*HUG!*).

And yes, that’s the thing: We are drawn to these characters in literary and visual world, because we respond to the alienation feel of it, and a lot because it is, just like with heroes, a bit of a wish-fulfillment. It feels nice to be someone who doesn’t care about the opinions and petty concerns of others. It feels good to have the power of just shrugging it off and looking good doing it.

But when it comes to real life, thank goodness for the happy medium! :) I am very glad your sisters found that, and I am rooting for you to find that, too! :)

Sorry, again, for the long-winded reply.  

07 Mar 12 @ 10:33 am  —  via + org  —  reblog
#musings  

hsm7:

unreconstructedfangirl:

ohiogurl:

SNIP

I also think that this scene is significant, and we will learn more about what “we will be one” means in S5.

Yes, I really wondered about “we will be one” when they showed Eric kissing Nora and then cut to Sookie’s disconsolate face in the bath in the new promo. I have no idea if she “feels” his emotions now, as he feels hers, but that editing was just so suggestive. The way she lifted her head as if she sensed something. 

Whatever happens, I think this moment will be significant for the future. The show has already established that Eric’s blood is awakening Sookie’s fairy gifts (the light that comes from her fingers). They made a big deal of the meeting of opposites during the forest dream that followed their mutual blood exchange.The whole juxtaposition of male/female; naked/clothed; vampire/fairy; darkness/sunlight they employed wasn’t just coincidence.One of the posters on the show’s boards compared it to the metaphysical concept of the hieros gamos (the sacred wedding). This was a union of opposing forces (male/female; often human/divine) that bestowed power on a king. In many cultures, the heir-apparent would sleep with the Goddess (or her avatar) to become king. The meeting of human and divine would ensure the fertility/virility and power of both the monarch and the land the monarch ruled. It was sex as an invocation of spiritual power. Given that Sookie’s power increases quite a bit after this scene (she breaks the spell on Eric, her light power extends to both hands), this poster may be onto something. 

Oh my gosh, yes! I remembered reading about that in Jung’s Symbols of Transformation, so I looked it upagain — he refers to it as “the sacred marriage” and looks at a series of woodcuts from 1550 that are an alchemical document called the Rosarium Philosophorum, which depict the marriage of the Sun and the Moon sharing a bed and making love, and it isn’t just about king and queen, it’s about the union of opposite, but equal “twin souls”, whose union results in a spiritual completion. It’s not all hearts and flowers, though, I found this summary which jives with my memory:

The series of images begins with that of the mercurial fountain, symbolizing the aroused energy of transformation and continues with the meeting of the Sun and Moon as King and Queen, first fully clad and later having relinquished their garments. The lovers thus confront each other with their personae and defenses, but proceed to a meeting in “naked truth”. The partners then immerse themselves in the alchemical bath, thus allowing the force of love to engulf their conscious egos, blotting out rational and mundane considerations. 
Which, really, is a TOTAL DESCRIPTION of what happened — the shower can stand in for the alchemical bath, even. Anyway, the two lovers in the woodcuts literally become one — an androgynous being, which is symbolic of their spiritual union, but one which is not viable, and dies:
But, contrary expectations, this union, which initially brought forth a newly formed androgynous being, results in death. The spiritual result of love is not viable and, having expired, undergoes decomposition.
And then it gets interesting:
It is at this point that the force of commitment to the process becomes all-important. By not abandoning the transformational work, the soul of the dead androgyne ascends to heaven, i.e., to a higher level of consciousness, while the body is washed in celestial dew. Soon the departed soul (the symbolic image of the sacred marriage) returns to its earthly body, and the reanimated corpse stands in its full, numinous glory for all to see. A new being is born which is the promised fruit of love, the transformed consciousness of the lovers, formed of the opposites, which are now welded into an inseparable imperishable wholeness. The alchemy of love has reached its true and triumphant culmination.
Oh my God, True Blood. BRING IT.

I would suspect, though, that the signs may be subtle at first. The show tends NOT to beat us about the head with the metaphysical aspects of Eric and Sookie’s relationship. That would give too much away.

Yes, and if it just clobbered us over the head with the philosophical content it would cease to be a story that 90% of the audience could follow without thinking about a goddamned thing. It’s this archetypal undercurrent, though, that makes the story so impossible to let go of, even if you have no conscious idea that it’s there, but when you just say it outright, it’s coercive and hectoring, and…

Much of the book series’ appeal is that Sookie is in romantic flux, unable to choose between her various boyfriends. The suspense of who she will choose is a major source of dramatic tension. If it is too obvious that Sookie shares something unique with Eric, it will become evident that she’s “destined” for him, destroying much of the drama and suspense. 

Yes — the notion of a destined love bothers a lot of people for whom the main question of the story is “Who will Sookie choose?” to me, that’s not the interesting question — in the story on True Blood, I feel pretty freaking certain that if the people telling that story are worth their salt, the choice has been made, the question is, how will it survive and be brought into being and into the light. In other words, by what process will they achieve their destiny?

This is getting so exciting! I can’t believe the parallels.  There is so much hope I can barely contain it!! (not that there wasn’t before, but this is pretty frickin’ incredible)  Season 5, 59 days…I can’t wait!!! :)

12 Apr 12 @ 10:59 am  —  via + org  —  reblog

maggiesview:

Sorry, I am late catching up with all of this. I was out of town for 4 days. I couldn’t agree more , after watching Eps.9, about the ambiguity of Bill’s turn to the dark. He seems genuinely conflicted here. He tells Eric, ”I am lost”, and expresses his doubts. Eric pushes all of this aside in an attempt to keep things simple and get to a point where Bill will ally with him in escaping the Authority. Eric is pressed for time and wants to leave the authority as soon as possible. Thus, Eric hopes he has pushed the right buttons regarding Sookie and his warning to Bill to stay away from  Lilith’s blood. He quickly outlines the plan for Bill and Bill’s part in it. It seems Bill has been turned from his dark path and that he will support Eric.

However, when Bill drinks Salome’s blood (while hallucinating that she is Sookie) he further hallucinates that she is Lilith and he and Lilith roll around in a bed soaked by Sookies blood. Finally he snaps out of it and sees he is with Salome and there is no bloody bed. He and Salome have  simply fed from each other as they had sex.

However, something very profound has happened for Bill here. I do believe he started feeding from Salome so he could gather her blood to put in the vial Eric gave him. However, by the end of the sex and feeding scene with Salome, Bill had totally rounded the corner and became a true convert. He puts his finger into his mouth, where some of Salome’s blood still lingers and stares at that finger with her blood on it. This seems to be the point where he makes a some kind of profound connection and turns back toward the dark path and Salome’s side. 

I replayed this scene as well as the parallel scene where Eric plays Nora and a theory emerged regarding Lilith’s blood and the role it is playing here. That theory involves the nature of Lilith’s blood. I came up with two ideas regarding that blood. 1. It is not Lilith’s blood at all but Salome’s blood (in this case it would be Salome who has either spiked the blood with a drug or who is some kind of hybrid) 2. Salome and perhaps Nora, at this point, have had so many doses of Lilith’s blood that their blood has the same drug like qualities as Lilith’s blood. I  think this  because Eric questions Nora about how she was converted and Nora tells him Salome would sneak her down to the drink Lilith’s blood while Roman slept during the day. Eric and the audience know, at this point, that Nora has recieved repeated dosages of Lilith’s blood and can be saved if she went through detox and de-programming (much like cult followers today who have to undergo deprogramming and if drugs were used detoxification as well) this is why Eric injects her with something that knocks her out and is carrying her with them as they make their escape. Also, it may account for Bill’s betrayal.

He may think, given the hallucinations he had, after he drank Salome’s blood that Salome is the embodiment of Lilith and that Lilith was indeed choosing him as her mate and partner. When he puts Salome’s blood on his finger and looks at in in wonderment, the profound connection he is making could be that the blood of Lilith and Salome are the same. For Bill this insight is the turning point. He has been chosen by a God to be the mate of her embodiment on earth, Salome. He is a true convert now. I think the blood of Salome and Lilith is the same. Either because as I stated above the blood really belongs to Salome or because she has had enough of it to taint her blood in the same way Lilith’s blood is tainted. (by tainted I mean something other than just vampire blood is in it)

In this way, both Nora and Bill could be seen as victims and they can be allowed off the hook at a future date. Eric says, that Nora was a “power hungry bitch” that “he used to love” ( Eri’s implication is that loved the “power hungry bitch” that she used to be but he does not love the religious slave that she has become) and Nora expounds upon her change by agreeing that all she used to care about was rising in the ranks to eventually become Guardian. Bill has shown repeatedly that he has a weakness for power. (I don’t need to re-iterate all the power mongering Bill has done-we have all mentioned it repeatedly) Eric also says Nora is a political genius and although Bill is far from a political genius his one true calling is definitely political ( he prevaricates, speechifies, manipulates and lies with the best of them). Perhaps, the more susceptible one is to a desire for power through political maneuvering, the more vulnerable one is to the influence of Litlith’s blood be it hers or Salome’s. It is tainted with something and that something seems to work more profoundly and powerfully on those who are like Nora and Bill. Russel does not seem to be as affected because although he is after power and domination it is not via political or religious channels or an orgaization such as Salome has in mind. He wants to take control and have all go his way with only himself as dictator (hence his infamous TV spectacle and repeated “fuck the authority” comments.) Russel is far too independent to be easily brainwashed by drugs and suggestions that are counter to who he fundamentally is. Eric, likewise has such independence. As Nora says to him,”Still the Viking” when Eric tells her that to believe and have faith like she has means to surrender (as in surrender who one fundamentally is) and he does not surrender easily. Thus it is that Eric and Russel are not under the influence of the blood as Bill and Nora are and as Kibwe and Rosyln appear to be. I say appear to be because it is going to take something more powerful than the  Eric and Molly  allianceto free Eric from death. Perhaps one of those two is not under the influence  either and has managed so far to keep it hidden. 

The question of Bill’s dark side is just that on TB., a question that will never be answered. It makes him ambiguous and prone to all of the pitfalls we have seen to date and will see upcoming. I don’t think TB means him to be understood as a creature of the dark. He is representative of the fallibility inherent in any who have no moral compass. A  moral compass dictated by self and what is meant by “to oneself always be true” not a moral compass dictated by politics and religion.

Being true to self is a moral theme on TB which is played out most significantly by Bill, Eric, Sookie and then by Sam, Jason, Alcide, Pam and Tara as well as others such as Russell, Marianne and MarAntonia as well as by minor characters such as Terry this season. Terry is strictured to do what is “right” by Arlene and the ghost of the Arab woman he killed. Terry does do what is right for his inner moral compass. When he followed his sergeants orders and killed the innocent woman previously he was going against who he was and he suffered for years because of it. This time, he goes with who he is and he kills him. It is a just and rightful killing in Terry’s eyes. On TB, we see what happens to those who remain true to themselves (growth and developement) and what happens to those who don’t (pain, suffering and sometimes death). Hence, many of us expect Nora to die and perhaps others actually hope Bill will die or at least suffer the tortures of the dammed. However, there is a loophole for Bill and Nora if I am correct about the blood. Those who are weak and succumb to drug induced cult crimes are still considered redeemable and may very well be redeemed. Both Nora and Bill may live through and participate in the Sanguinista movement but in the end when it falls may simply be freed instead of killed. As Marinane’s and MarAntonia’s followers were freed. 

I am not looking for some definitive labeling of Bill Compton as evil and bad. He has clearly been painted as weak and forever vacillating in his ideas of what is right and wrong. Eric and Sookie, on the other hand, have been painted as strong and willing to die for their ideas of right and wrong which remain consistent throughout the seasons. Eric does not give a fig for what others consider right or wrong. He follows his own moral compass. Sookie is doing so more and more as each season progresses. She killed Debbie Pelt because she thought it was the right thing to do regardless of what the law or anyone else might have thought about it and I expect this season she will go even further in support of her convictions. Pam seems ready to live “in the wind” as she and Eric used to do rather than give in to this regime and I suspect Alcide, Sam, Jason etc. will have to make similar decisions as the line is drawn in the sand and the weak will succumb and the strong will stand firm.

That’s a very interesting examination, and I agree with a lot of things. And some I would debate (at a later time). This is worth a separate and closer look. 
06 Aug 12 @ 6:30 pm  —  reblog
hsm7:

stillhidden:

divinethedivine:

stillhidden:

divinethedivine:

stillhidden:

wayofthelotus:

stillhidden:

wayofthelotus:

stillhidden:

wayofthelotus:

hsm7:

Bill, Bill, Bill…always refusing to take ownership of your actions. 

Exactly! How many times has Bill told Sookie “I’m doing/did/am going to do this for you” when he was trying to manipulate her or lie to her? Bill is now going to betray her just like he betrayed Eric. Just like he’s done to everyone who has ever loved him or cared about his well-being.

He can’t be otherwise, he can’t live otherwise. This is how he lives with himself. This is who he is at the core. He needs self-justification like he needs to breathe. His human family, Lorena, Sookie, Eric — it doesn’t matter who he is justifying himself to, as long as he gets to use “It’s for your own good, it’s out of my love for you, it’s because I care” when he causes them harm. 
Bill in a nutshell. 

Raelle Tucker on “Inside the Episode” says that Bill really believes he’s doing this for Eric and that he’s saving him. To Bill this is not a decision to betray his friend, it’s a decision to save his friend’s soul. Which is why Salome chose Bill, because she knew he was weak of will and would shift his position in an instant if it meant he could believe in something, no matter how depraved, as long as he felt “special” or “chosen”.

And that’s Bill’s MO, always. He believes everything he does is for someone else’s good. He needs this or he has to face his own dastardly nature. And he can never do that. 
The real tragedy of Bill. 
Also, fuck Bill! :)

It’s so interesting how Bill finally found his nirvana in a bed covered in blood after having just hallucinated killing Sookie. Shades of season 2 Bill and Lorena with the couple during prohibition, anyone?

Indeed.

I think I am having a bit of a personal crisis.
I have a theory. And it is one that is almost pro Bill. A reasonable explanation for his actions being not entirely bad in this moment.
I don’t know what to do with myself now. I could share it with you all. But I am having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that I think this theory is plausible.


Share. You can’t say something like this and not share. Share!

Okay. Bear with me because this is already hard for me to stomach.
So I was ready to blog about how it must be impossible for people to still like Bill after this episode.
But then my mom said something. She thought she saw some look in Bill’s eyes that meant he had a plan. And that for being so into mainstreaming, caring about humans, and having kids, it would be weird for him to do this.
Now that I don’t really agree with. The idea of him not being able to turn on his past like this, based on his treatment of Sookie and all those other despicable things he has done.
But then I noticed something. Something weird. Something that doesn’t make sense but perhaps is somehow true.
So we know Salome is the biggest Lilith devotee that we have ever met. She apparently started feeding Nora the Lilith blood years ago. And then she fed everyone else Lilith blood. She is all about the sharing of Lilith blood to encourage faith in this vampire god.
So why hasn’t it run out yet? Salome must be around 2000 years old and she perhaps has been drinking Lilith blood for centuries. So that was the first thing that occurred to me as strange.
So Bill was being a typical despicable Bill when he imagined bitting Sookie when he was really biting Salome. But what happened next? Salome then turned into Lilith in Bill’s imagination. And then when she finally turns back into Salome, Bill touches his fangs and looks carefully at the blood on his finger in an oddly serious way. And then goes back to fucking Salome. Whatever.
But what I see here is perhaps a recognition that Salome’s blood has a similar taste to the blood of Lilith. And with an association to Sookie, perhaps he also senses some kind of fae blood taste too.
So my barely plausible theory is that Bill figured out Salome is a fraud who mixed her blood and ancient fae blood to make the fake blood of Lilith. Bill might actually be planning to expose Salome. If so, he needs to fool EVERYONE including Eric. That would be seriously impressive if Bill could do that, but it is possible, given the evidence he perhaps detected in biting Salome.
So, by exposing Eric’s attempt to escape with Molly and Nora, Bill maintains his allied image with the Authority AND perhaps prevents Eric/Nora/Molly from being hunted down and killed anyway.
Perhaps he IS doing this for them.
I don’t even.


I suppose that it’s not impossible. But it feels improbable. 
Here’s the thing: I grant you that whatever it is in that vial, it’s not a divine blood or divine anything. It’s a drug of some sort. And I fully believe that Salome is the one “dealing” that drug, “recruiting” followers. She wants power. But Bill? Bill wants power, but more than that, he wants to be justified in that want. And this is a perfect justification for him: He is the chosen one! 
Whether Bill thinks Salome is a fraud, I can’t see him betraying Eric and Molly in order to save them. For one thing, while he can believe that Eric won’t be put to death because Nora won’t let it happen, he can have no such assurance for Molly. Molly is a Level 3 tech, with no higher connections, and is absolutely expendable. This isn’t “saving” her, this is sentencing her to death.
Then there’s Bill touching his fangs with Salome’s blood. I didn’t take it this way. I saw it as Bill accepting the faith. What was it Eric said to Nora? Faith requires surrendering. I saw this as Bill surrendering to this Lilith notion, not as Bill plotting something.
Of course time will tell, but who knows, perhaps Bill does have something up his sleeve. But it’s not for Molly’s benefit (she is collateral damage to him), and I am hard-pressed to believe it’s for Eric’s. 

I’m not buying the “Bill has a plan” scenario. I think Bill has, indeed, surrendered. He surrendered enough to kill Sookie and his humanity (what little he actually had) in his mind and he’s surrendered enough to betray Eric. There is no success in a plan that prevents escape, especially when it’s an escape from a place heavily guarded and with high tech security measures in place.
Ironically, there was foreshadowing when Bill falsely accused Eric of being a traitor in an earlier episode, and we saw how Eric took that accusation. He was pissed. As it turns out, Bill turns out to be the real traitor, and he takes the sanctimonious high road. That foreshadowing also pretty much cements that this is not a game for Bill.

hsm7:

stillhidden:

divinethedivine:

stillhidden:

divinethedivine:

stillhidden:

wayofthelotus:

stillhidden:

wayofthelotus:

stillhidden:

wayofthelotus:

hsm7:

Bill, Bill, Bill…always refusing to take ownership of your actions. 

Exactly! How many times has Bill told Sookie “I’m doing/did/am going to do this for you” when he was trying to manipulate her or lie to her? Bill is now going to betray her just like he betrayed Eric. Just like he’s done to everyone who has ever loved him or cared about his well-being.

He can’t be otherwise, he can’t live otherwise. This is how he lives with himself. This is who he is at the core. He needs self-justification like he needs to breathe. His human family, Lorena, Sookie, Eric — it doesn’t matter who he is justifying himself to, as long as he gets to use “It’s for your own good, it’s out of my love for you, it’s because I care” when he causes them harm. 

Bill in a nutshell. 

Raelle Tucker on “Inside the Episode” says that Bill really believes he’s doing this for Eric and that he’s saving him. To Bill this is not a decision to betray his friend, it’s a decision to save his friend’s soul. Which is why Salome chose Bill, because she knew he was weak of will and would shift his position in an instant if it meant he could believe in something, no matter how depraved, as long as he felt “special” or “chosen”.

And that’s Bill’s MO, always. He believes everything he does is for someone else’s good. He needs this or he has to face his own dastardly nature. And he can never do that. 

The real tragedy of Bill. 

Also, fuck Bill! :)

It’s so interesting how Bill finally found his nirvana in a bed covered in blood after having just hallucinated killing Sookie. Shades of season 2 Bill and Lorena with the couple during prohibition, anyone?

Indeed.

I think I am having a bit of a personal crisis.

I have a theory. And it is one that is almost pro Bill. A reasonable explanation for his actions being not entirely bad in this moment.

I don’t know what to do with myself now. I could share it with you all. But I am having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that I think this theory is plausible.

Share. You can’t say something like this and not share. Share!

Okay. Bear with me because this is already hard for me to stomach.

So I was ready to blog about how it must be impossible for people to still like Bill after this episode.

But then my mom said something. She thought she saw some look in Bill’s eyes that meant he had a plan. And that for being so into mainstreaming, caring about humans, and having kids, it would be weird for him to do this.

Now that I don’t really agree with. The idea of him not being able to turn on his past like this, based on his treatment of Sookie and all those other despicable things he has done.

But then I noticed something. Something weird. Something that doesn’t make sense but perhaps is somehow true.

So we know Salome is the biggest Lilith devotee that we have ever met. She apparently started feeding Nora the Lilith blood years ago. And then she fed everyone else Lilith blood. She is all about the sharing of Lilith blood to encourage faith in this vampire god.

So why hasn’t it run out yet? Salome must be around 2000 years old and she perhaps has been drinking Lilith blood for centuries. So that was the first thing that occurred to me as strange.

So Bill was being a typical despicable Bill when he imagined bitting Sookie when he was really biting Salome. But what happened next? Salome then turned into Lilith in Bill’s imagination. And then when she finally turns back into Salome, Bill touches his fangs and looks carefully at the blood on his finger in an oddly serious way. And then goes back to fucking Salome. Whatever.

But what I see here is perhaps a recognition that Salome’s blood has a similar taste to the blood of Lilith. And with an association to Sookie, perhaps he also senses some kind of fae blood taste too.

So my barely plausible theory is that Bill figured out Salome is a fraud who mixed her blood and ancient fae blood to make the fake blood of Lilith. Bill might actually be planning to expose Salome. If so, he needs to fool EVERYONE including Eric. That would be seriously impressive if Bill could do that, but it is possible, given the evidence he perhaps detected in biting Salome.

So, by exposing Eric’s attempt to escape with Molly and Nora, Bill maintains his allied image with the Authority AND perhaps prevents Eric/Nora/Molly from being hunted down and killed anyway.

Perhaps he IS doing this for them.

I don’t even.

I suppose that it’s not impossible. But it feels improbable. 

Here’s the thing: I grant you that whatever it is in that vial, it’s not a divine blood or divine anything. It’s a drug of some sort. And I fully believe that Salome is the one “dealing” that drug, “recruiting” followers. She wants power. But Bill? Bill wants power, but more than that, he wants to be justified in that want. And this is a perfect justification for him: He is the chosen one! 

Whether Bill thinks Salome is a fraud, I can’t see him betraying Eric and Molly in order to save them. For one thing, while he can believe that Eric won’t be put to death because Nora won’t let it happen, he can have no such assurance for Molly. Molly is a Level 3 tech, with no higher connections, and is absolutely expendable. This isn’t “saving” her, this is sentencing her to death.

Then there’s Bill touching his fangs with Salome’s blood. I didn’t take it this way. I saw it as Bill accepting the faith. What was it Eric said to Nora? Faith requires surrendering. I saw this as Bill surrendering to this Lilith notion, not as Bill plotting something.

Of course time will tell, but who knows, perhaps Bill does have something up his sleeve. But it’s not for Molly’s benefit (she is collateral damage to him), and I am hard-pressed to believe it’s for Eric’s. 

I’m not buying the “Bill has a plan” scenario. I think Bill has, indeed, surrendered. He surrendered enough to kill Sookie and his humanity (what little he actually had) in his mind and he’s surrendered enough to betray Eric. There is no success in a plan that prevents escape, especially when it’s an escape from a place heavily guarded and with high tech security measures in place.

Ironically, there was foreshadowing when Bill falsely accused Eric of being a traitor in an earlier episode, and we saw how Eric took that accusation. He was pissed. As it turns out, Bill turns out to be the real traitor, and he takes the sanctimonious high road. That foreshadowing also pretty much cements that this is not a game for Bill.

06 Aug 12 @ 6:45 pm  —  via + org  —  reblog

maggiesview:

Irrelevant: maggiesview: Sorry, I am late catching up with all of this. I was out…

stillhidden:

maggiesview:

Sorry, I am late catching up with all of this. I was out of town for 4 days. I couldn’t agree more , after watching Eps.9, about the ambiguity of Bill’s turn to the dark. He seems genuinely conflicted here. He tells Eric, ”I am lost”, and expresses his doubts. Eric…

There are parts here that I am in debate with myself about. However, when I write about speculative and interpretive ideas, it becomes way , way too long if I include all the variables that I see. I just wanted to main points to hang together so that others could pose questions or express their views on them. I am sure that is why you chose not to interrupt the flow with your debatable points. Thanks.

I’m glad you included all the points! It’s what makes this so comprehensive and interesting. And they are valid points, too. So thank you! :)

06 Aug 12 @ 8:32 pm  —  via + org  —  reblog

maggiesview:

him-e:

stillhidden:

thinkingbox:

thetypicalheroine:

But baby vamps like Tara and Jessica have no trouble with it, even after She’s been hanging out with pure fairies for days?

I think this tells us something about Nora, not about how vampires behave around Sookie in…

And well they should be. After, all Nora has not been presented as a stable character. Eric refers to her as “my crazy sister” and I think that is telling as well. Eric is a pragmatic,centered being who knows who and what he is. I think he regards Nora as “crazy” because she gets obsessive about different political causes, she retains her snobbish and elitist ways,and isolates her self from “real life”. As Eric said to her when they slaughtered 12 of the vampire Authority gaurds, “See what you have been missing while you have been with the fucking Authority”. Eric loves a good fight and getting his hands dirty. Nora, uses a battery of wooden stakes, instead of her hands. While all of this could simply serve as a contrast for Eric and Pam, Jessica and Tara, it could also, point to a future weakness in Nora’s character that will mean “Trouble” for the other members of Eric’s family.Tension has to come from somewhere and now that Pam and Tara are heading into the lovey dovey zone, someone has to give Eric and the two of them a major headache. Nora will do very nicely. Other than that, there is always the matter of a deeper betrayal but somehow I sense that she is done betraying Eric.

29 Aug 12 @ 11:50 am  —  via + org  —  reblog

mametupa:

Sunset (Episode 11)

Godric: “Lilith is a godless god. She will lead you and all around you to destruction. If you kill and kill, there will be nothing left, not even you.”

Salome: “..And now everything we’ve dreamed of is coming to pass. The world will run with blood. And we’ll be there to drink it down. And in darkness we shall rejoice.”

“Sunset is the hour when evil spirits of all kinds have most power. In Perak, children are often called indoors at this time to save from unseen dangers.” (The Influence of Animism on Islam, Samuel M. Zwemer)

Sunset or sundown is the daily disappearance of the Sun below the horizon in the west as a result of Earth’s rotation. Sunset is the point at which the sun is first completely below the horizon marking the start of twilight. It should not be confused with dusk, which starts at the end of twilight.

The experience of the birth and the death of the sun is associated with the development of many mythologies and symbols and was the first evidence to man that time has a cyclical aspect. As the seasons symbolise the life stages of mankind, so also do the various parts of a day. Carl Jung in Modern Man In Search Of A Soul compares the life of an individual with the stages of a day. Sunset ushers in the world and place of night. The sun sets in the west and the setting sun represents the death of the day. Twilight time follows sunset which again marks a hazy, water-colourish time between day and night. Twilight means “half-light” and the half light of morning or evening is a symbol of dichotomy, representing the dividing-line which at once joins and separates a pair of opposites. Twilight, notes Cirlot, is characterised by lack of definition and ambivalence, and is therefore closely related to the space-symbolism of the Hanged Man or of any object suspended between heaven and earth. Evening-light is associated with the West, symbolising the location of death.

Originally, this episode was going to be titled “The Song of the dead fairy”. The fairies are strongly associated with twilight, a time of the day just after the sunset. In his manuscript, The Secret Commonwealth of Elves, Fauns and Fairies, Reverend Robert Kirk, minister of the Parish of Aberfoyle, Stirling, Scotland, wrote in 1691:

“These Siths or Fairies they call Sleagh Maith or the Good People…are said to be of middle nature between Man and Angel, as were Daemons thought to be of old; of intelligent fluidous Spirits, and light changeable bodies (lyke those called Astral) somewhat of the nature of a condensed cloud, and best seen in twilight. These bodies be so pliable through the sublety of Spirits that agitate them, that they can make them appear or disappear at pleasure.”

 The Celts viewed the sun’s journey as a cycle of death and rebirth but on a yearly rather than a daily cycle, with midwinter as death and spring as rebirth. The Celtic celebration called Beltane, held in spring, honoured their sun god Belenus.

In Greek mythology, Helios (later identified with Apollo) is associated with the sun’s journey: Helios was imagined as a handsome god crowned with the shining aureole of the Sun, who drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day to earth-circling Oceanus and through the world-ocean returned to the East at night. The Hesperides were the goddesses of the evening and golden light of sunset. The three nymphs were daughters of either Nyx (Night) or the heaven-bearing Titan Atlas. They were entrusted with the care of the tree of the golden apples which was first presented to the goddess Hera by Gaia (Earth) on her wedding day. They were assisted in their task by a hundred-headed guardian drakon named Ladon.

In Egypt, sunset is a symbol of the goddess Sekhmet. Sekhmet was the Goddess of sunset, destruction, death, and wisdom. The cycle of life and death was created when the primeval Goddess Sekhmet-Bast divided into two sisters, Sekhmet and Bast, wife sisters of God Ptah. It has been said, that the Sun God Ra, created his daughter, the lion-headed Goddess Sekhmet, from the fire in his eyes at high noon. She had been created, to act as Ra’s instrument of vengeance, which would bring plagues and retribution, upon everyone who dared to oppose him. Ra gave Sekhmet the title, the “Right Eye of Ra.”

Additionally, Ra as Horus of the two Horizons, Ra-Horakhty is also associated with sunset (and sunrise). Ra-Horakhty simply refers to the sun’s journey from horizon to horizon as Ra, or it means to show Ra as a symbolic deity of hope and rebirth. Another sunset manifestation of Ra is Khnum, ram-headed Ra, while Khepri was a sunrise Ra, manifesting in the form of a scarab beetle.

In Norse mythology, Ragnarok, the Twilight of Gods, represents the final destiny of the world, future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. It is described in the Poetic Edda, Voluspa: In stanza 41 it is said:

“It sates itself on the life-blood

of fated men,

paints red the powers’ homes

with crimson gore.

Black become the sun’s beams

in the summers that follow,

weathers all treacherous.

Do you still seek to know? And what?”

Read more:

http://www.symbolism.org/writing/books/sp/4/page3.html

http://www.khandipages.com/spirit_of_blackness2/sekhmet.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnarök

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Hesperides.html

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/ofapoet/sekhmet.html

http://lilithgate.atspace.org/essays/uzlil.html

Very cool read. :)

10 Sep 12 @ 11:44 am  —  via + org  —  reblog
OS