Archive for March, 2011
(WARNING: below, I will separate parts that I write that contain no book spoilers and those that do. They will be similar except the book spoilers section obviously contains all my thoughts while the no-book spoilers sections does not. Try to skim past the book spoilers sections if you want.)
No Book Spoilers: I wonder why Eric is wearing pants in this scene when we have clearly been shown that Skarsgard has no qualms being naked? Those shoes also do not look like something Eric would typically wear either. Could Eric have been dressed by someone else and placed there? It also makes no sense that Eric is wandering shirtless yet randomly still wearing a new necklace (at least from what I can see). Is this necklace a key to his current condition? Was he dressed or just un-partially dressed by someone that put him in this position?
Also, notice the bruises on Eric. Why would a vampire (especially an old vampire such as Eric) possess bruises of any kind? A vampire heals quickly enough for bruises to be of no concern. Does this suggest that Eric has somehow become human or was vulnerable in some special way to someone? My reader Cindy suggested that this might also be the result of prolonged vampire starvation as well.
Book Spoilers: I wonder why Eric is wearing pants in this scene when we have clearly been shown that Skarsgard has no qualms being naked? (as my reader Hime said, Eric was partially clothed in the books, but we have seen him naked on True Blood already, including Sookie of course). Those shoes also do not look like something Eric would typically wear either. Could Eric have been dressed by someone else? ( Eric could have stolen the shoes from someone in desperation thought) If you notice the necklace, that points to something that might be used to cast the spell upon Eric. There have been theories that have expressed the presence and use of magic against people on True Blood. Book Four, of course, includes a witch named Hallow that casts a spell on Eric. Did Hallow force the necklace upon Eric during the spell or use the dark-colored necklace (pointing to black magic) in her spell? Will the necklace come into play later on in the plot of the next season? I also see a tint of green in the necklace which points to re-newel. The book points to an amnesic Eric that won’t remember who he is or his past transgressions. Does the green in the necklace symbolize a re-newel of Eric because of that?
Also, notice the bruises on Eric, why would a vampire have bruises (especially an old one like Eric that heals so quickly)? Remember that Eric healed very quickly when Lafayette tasted his blood. Does this suggest that Eric will be transformed into a human (beyond his mental state) and Sookie will fall for a human Eric, remember that we saw no hints of a vampiric Eric in the first season two dream beyond his suggestions that she could become a vampire? We know True Blood carries plot points of the book to a new extreme so this could mean that they will carry it from a purely mental state to a physical one as well; this would coincidence, symbolically or otherwise, with his more lanky and visually less intimidating physique. Or does this suggest that witches, such as the equivalent of Hallow, can harm vampires much more severely than any purely earthly element would because they manipulate magic? I think it’s probably one those suggestions unless it simply is supposed to be the dirt of wandering through the woods (haha)…Remember that witches are known the use their natural surroundings for spells. Perhaps Eric is wandering from the site of the spell (which may or may not be clarified)?
I am also not convinced that is Sookie’s voice though it most probably is (we know that is a strong possibly from the books) and maybe someone else will discover him first then bring him to her for help and she’ll have to make her decision then instead. If it is her, then maybe she gets transported there from fairyland, or as a renewed fairy to help him or it’s just after work like in the books.
A loyal reader, Cindy, also suggested that Eric’s bruises might be because someone was “starving him” and he did not heal because of that and also looked generally sicker.
No Book Spoilers: I think this is obviously a way of bringing Sam into the werewolf plot, including possibly Alcide’s plot. I think this shows the shifter and Were plots will intermingle with their own feelings of being hidden from the world and the potential consequences of this is also a way to show the contrast and antagonism between shifters and Weres (such as werewolves and werepanthers). The name “Luna” shows that Luna herself is probably a werewolf though many spoilers have shown that she is probably a shifter. If Luna is a shifter, Sam may have trouble trusting Luna simply because she is like him and with good reason, as we saw with Daphne in Season Two. If Luna is a shifter being harassed by a werewolf ex-boyfriend, this will further highlight Sam’s hatred (and a shifter’s hatred) for werewolves. If Luna is a werewolf, then this shows a reconciliation with werewolves that will have to come in order for Sam to love/care for Luna. This also shows the possible consequences of a shifter/ were relationship whether it’s the contrast of Sam and Luna themselves or Sam and Luna to her ex-boyfriend. The name Luna, however, can be associated with other nightime creatures and therefore, another type of Were. Will Luna’s motivations for Sam turn out to be good?
This plot could also be a parallel to the desperation that we know Bill will feel in attempting to get Sookie back versus any attempts that she has to move on from her relationship with Bill.
Book Spoilers: *Read what I said above.* In addition, we know Luna had a brief appearance in the books as a shifter that helps Sookie. We know that Luna shifts into a bat in the books. Maybe Luna is a Werebat in True Blood, though that could just be her preferred form as a shifter like Sam. If True Blood is true to the book, then Luna’s overall intentions will probably be good, though nobody is all good or bad on True Blood. Maybe Luna could be Sam’s true love on True Blood though we know that they will face obstacles, which is already evident, in order to keep their love.
No Book Spoilers: Everything seems self-explanatory. Crystal is helping keep Jason hostage in order to turn him into a Werepanter (“you’re being re-born just like one of us”). They must be able to turn Jason in a Werepanther somehow. The cast on Jason’s leg shows an attempt to run away and since he is restrained, this is further proof that this is not a transformation that he willingly submitted to; this leaves out the obvious physical abuse. I think the residents of HotShot decided that he must become like one of them to lead them or he is being forced to do this because of an attack by Felton. Crystal is obviously delusional that he will come around once to his new role once he is a Werepanther himself, as evidenced by her behavior. Despite this, I doubt this bodes will for Jason and Crystal’s relationship. Jason may feel trapped by his new form even if he might possibly enjoy it. He will also probably never be considered a “Real Werepanter” even if he wants to help HotShot since he was not born one and he will resent Crystal for what she was complicit in despite his attempts to rescue her from her own world.
Book Spoilers: *read above here as well* Even the books clearly show that Jason and Crystal’s relationship is far from perfect. This is another typical extreme by Ball to show that Crystal will be complicit in Jason’s transformation. We know that the tight genetics of HotShot call for Jason’s new DNA and this will probably be part of the plot for the next season; Crystal will probably want children from Jason before he is ready because of this as well. Crystal may attempt to force children from Jason in the same way she is forcing his transformation! Anyone who has read the books knows that Crystal was ultimately shady and no-good despite the sympathies for her atrocious up-bringing. True Blood Crystal was bound to be no different and we know everything is exaggerated on True Blood. It was never a stretch to think of her doing something like this to Jason, even herself.
It seems like there has been a lot of attention paid to this new assertion by TV Gude and Alan Ball concerning fairies at other blogs such as Sookieverseblog:
“Here’s one thing you can be sure of: Fairies can’t be turned into vampires. (Vampires just think their blood is mighty tasty and helpful for sun-bathing.) But executive producer Alan Ball reveals something else that fairies can do: “They can abduct humans and take them somewhere else that is not here,” he says. “Just like aliens.”
A lot of people are looking into these statements for obvious reasons:
1. “Fairies can’t be turned into vampires. (Vampires just think their blood is mighty tasty and helpful for sun-bathing.)”
This statement evoked many of these thoughts, of course:
Wait, Sookie is a fairy! This means Sookie can’t be turned! ; Bill must have known about Sookie when he said “That’s impossible.” to Russell’s statement about possibly turning Sookie ; Maybe if Sookie is only part fairy, that means she can still possibly be turned ; That explains why Sookie wasn’t turned in the hospital despite Bill draining her to the point of near death and giving her his blood ; etc…
A. “Wait, Sookie is a fairy! This means Sookie can’t be turned!”
Charlaine Harris, author of the Sookie Stackhouse novels that inspired the show, has said repeatedly that “Sookie won’t be a vampire.” Although Alan Ball has taken many liberties with the show, I doubt that he would end True Blood with this scenario if he is really attempting to “keep to the spirit of the book,” as he claims. I doubt Charlaine Harris would approve of this scenario on True Blood so I think any notion that Sookie will be turned was wishful thinking even before this fairy rule was stated though I may have considered it myself even— ha ha. We have had some notions that people such as Eric may suggest that Sookie be turned, especially during some Season two scenes with Eric, but this is not a definite indication that this will occur on True Blood especially since Charlaine Harris obviously doesn’t want that. Therefore, what does it matter that fairies cannot be turned? People have suggested that takes away the beauty that Sookie may choose to not be turned but really that just takes away any pressure of it from her vampire relationships because they will already know that before they get into a relationship with her. If for some reason Sookie ends up with a non-vampire (though I see no interesting or true prospects personally), she won’t have any reasonable regrets about not being turned and living out her life as a vampire with one of her vampire suitors.
B. ” Bill must have known about Sookie when he said “That’s impossible.” to Russell’s statement about possibly turning Sookie.”
Even though this could be completely invalid since even I have throughly entertained the possibility that Bill may have been stalking Sookie from childhood, I will still bring this perspective in for the sake of the argument since this is how it has been shown on True Blood on the surface (though we know the show is much deeper). Ummmm..I think back to when Hadley told Sookie that the Queen was interested in hearing Sookie was a telepathic. The Queen “suddenly became interested in Sookie” when Hadley told the queen this. Yet, we have seen no indication that the Queen was especially interested in Sookie’s telepathic powers on True Blood. On True Blood, telepathy seems to be connected to being a fairy. If the Queen is as knowledge about mythology as she seems (she knew a lot about Maenads when nobody else did in Season Two), she probably put two-and-two together and figured out that she had a potential fairy waiting for her BEFORE SHE SENT BILL TO BON TEMPS. If she wasn’t actually interested in Sookie’s telepathy, then she had to be interested in Sookie purely because she was a fairy. If she was interested in Sookie because she was a fairy, then it had to be because of the taste of her blood and the day walking that came with it.
Then after all of Bill’s “mistakes” and lies were revealed, the Queen shows up at Bill’s house and tells Bill “I have waited CENTURIES to find a true fae.” Well, do we really think that the queen would have just blurted that out right then and there if she hadn’t ever mentioned it to Bill, especially with her obvious obsession with day light so evident? Therefore, I am pretty sure he was playing dumb or couldn’t believe it himself along the way. Are we really supposed to believe that Bill had no idea or only figured it out at some point along the way if the queen just blurted it out and said she had been looking for centuries? Therefore, it seems obvious to me that Bill knew from the start that Sookie was a fairy and why he was getting her for the queen, so why would his statements to Russell at that time matter? Anyway, Bill probably desires Sookie for being a fairy and wouldn’t want to turn her anyway, he doesn’t even like being a vampire himself except for the power it brings him.
C. “Maybe if Sookie is only part fairy, that means she can still possibly be turned”
As we learned after Sookie got drained in the hospital, she does not have a blood type so it seems to me that she will obviously be more fairy than human on True Blood. If she is more fairy than human, it seems very unlikely that Sookie will be able to be turned on True Blood if she is more fairy than human. It seems that vampires would need to drain a natural blood type in order to turn someone. The subject of other supernaturals being turned was addressed in the books but hasn’t yet been addressed on True Blood so I will leave that out of the argument.
D. “That explains why Sookie wasn’t turned in the hospital despite Bill draining her to the point of near death and giving her a lot of his blood to save her.”
Well, unless there was a mention that I missed about an “instant turning”, turning someone into a vampire is a very specialized process and involves a magic element other than draining the subject to near death and giving them blood. In order to be turned, the vampire must go to ground (be buried with the subject) with the subject being turned and share their own “essence” with the subject. Even Pam told Bill not to stake Jessica before the transformation was complete. It would have not been complete otherwise. Therefore, the suggestion that Sookie would be turned just because of the blood exchange and without the “magic element,” does not make sense and the massive blood exchange without Sookie being turned was not a suggestion or hint by the writers or Alan Ball that Sookie could not be turned in my opinion. There have been suggestions that Sookie was partially healed by the fairy water, which if true, would also show this was not an example showing Sookie could not be turned…
2. “They can abduct humans and take them somewhere else that is not here,” he says. “Just like aliens.”
In actuality, I think this is all we need to know about fairies not being able to be turned. They are basically aliens from another world. If they are not humans and not supes that are partially human and partially an earthly animal that have blood types, and they are actually from “another place,” then Sookie does not have a blood type because she is mostly an alien and not a human. She is partially “not of this world.” After we found out Sookie did not have a blood type and after all of the suggestions and hints about the fairies being a kind of “alien,” we should have held no hopes that Sookie would be able to be turned…especially also because Claudine suggested she was fairy enough to become like them in her dream sequence…
To wrap up the main points about this article:
1. What does it matter that fairies cannot be turned, and therefore Sookie, if there were not any intentions of Sookie ever being turned in part because the author of the books has suggested she does not want that?
2. It seems obvious to me that Bill knew from the start that Sookie was a fairy and why he was getting her for the queen, so why would his statements to Russell at that time matter? Anyway, Bill probably desires Sookie for being a fairy and wouldn’t want to turn her anyway, he doesn’t even like being a vampire himself except for the power it brings him.
3. We learned Sookie does not have a blood type and is therefore more human than fairy. If she is more fairy than human, it seems very unlikely that Sookie will be able to be turned on True Blood if she is more fairy than human. It seems that vampires would need to drain a natural blood type in order to turn someone.
4. The suggestion that Sookie would be turned just because of the blood exchange and without the “magic element,” does not make sense and the massive blood exchange without Sookie being turned was not a suggestion or hint by the writers or Alan Ball that Sookie could not be turned in my opinion. There have been suggestions that Sookie was partially healed by the fairy water, which if true, would also show this was not an example showing Sookie could not be turned…
5. She is partially “not of this world.” After we found out Sookie did not have a blood type and after all of the suggestions and hints about the fairies being a kind of “alien,” we should have held no hopes that Sookie would be able to be turned…especially also because Claudine suggested she was fairy enough to become like them in her dream sequence.
Sookie is supposed to be our heroine and the main character of our show…yet… Many people have a difficult time understanding some of the reasoning behind Sookie’s actions/decisions and consider her to even be one of their least favorite characters despite her position on the show. Many audience members even also find Sookie “annoying” for a variety of reasons. There must be a reason for this right? Well, let’s consider things from a psychological viewpoint…Shall we?
…There is no doubt that Sookie would be profoundly affected by being essentially rejected her parents and subsequent molestation psychologically. I believe that many of Sookie’s problems or actions stem from this event in her life.
Some people respond to childhood sexual abuse by being completely withdrawn when it comes to sexual activity. Sookie certainly was hesitant to engage in sexual behavior initially not just because her ability isolated her, but because of the trauma of past sexual abuse. She admitted this hesitation/anxiety to Bill after the first time they had sex as she told him the story of her molestation. This happens even as Sookie insists that she supposedly “does not blame herself” and downgrades the severity of the situation by saying “it was just touching, not as bad as what some girls go through…”
People who experienced sexual abuse as a child can be underemployed in comparison to their abilities for a variety of reasons related to the trauma, included a lowered self-esteem. Sookie’s difficulty in studying with her ability/disability and societal rejection only exacerbated this symptom. As a result, Sookie ends up becoming a waitress and initially doubts her abilities for a better career until vampires begin using her ability.
Victims of childhood abuse can develop a feeling that their lives are out of their control and can focus on things they can control such as their home. This is part of what made Maryann’s violation of her home so much worse for her.
If the victim of sexual abuse does not respond to the sexual abuse by withdrawing completely, physically and emotionally, the victim can have trouble understanding boundaries since their own boundaries were not respected. In regards to Sookie, it can refer to the times she consciously intrudes in the minds of others when it isn’t necessary (such as hearing Arlene’s fears of pregnancy, Tara covering for Jason, and Alcide’s personal thoughts regarding Debbie and their situation) and moving too fast in relationships, which she was obviously able to do with Bill.
Other than the pure psychological trauma itself, I believe Sookie has developed a case of Dependent Personality Disorder or (DPD) as a result of her molestation and rejection throughout her life, despite her seemingly strong will and personal abilities.
People with DPD are attracted to forceful and dominant people who come into their lives.
People with DPD can use sex to feel close to someone emotionally after loss and/or personal trauma (even if the personal trauma occurred with the sexual partner).
People with DPD can become submissive in romantic relationships.
People with DPD seek people in their lives they consider “protectors” and when one “protector” is gone, it is replaced with another “protector figure” in their lives.
People with DPD can be excessively naive and be hyper-sensitive or ignore criticism from others (easily perceive criticisms as personal attacks no matter how well-meaning the intentions behind the criticisms are).
People with DPD tolerate a lot of mistreatment from others, especially romantic partners or close friends, so that they can avoid being alone.
People with DPD can easily attach to new romantic relationships or the idea of a new romantic relationships when they feel vulnerable and/or alone.
There are further examples which could be explored but we can see a lot of the behavior that we have been frustrated with or were disappointed about stems from a personality disorder (Dependent Personality Disorder) Sookie developed as a result of childhood molestation and isolation that she also experienced as a child and into adulthood.
Sookie is obviously not a typical heroine who is always strong and independent and ready to conquer anything. In fact, Sookie is a better heroine than that because she is human (at least partly lol) just like you and I. She takes advantage of her strengths while also struggling with her weaknesses. Maybe, the heroic part of her story will be to either learn her personal strength and independence with a love like Eric that encourages that side of her or it will simply be her learning her independence. Sookie’s story will be inspiring because it will either be tale of overcoming personal struggles with love OR it will be a tale of learning personal strength and independence…
…or perhaps, IT IS BOTH!
Sources Include: WebMD, “Psychology” by Myers (Publisher Worth Edition 9), and The Dependent Personality by Bornstein.
I have had the pleasure of reading books related to psychology during my current college studies. One of the many books that stood out to me was this entertaining and informative book about the disorder of Sociopathy or (APD: Antisocial Personality Disorder), “The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout.
According to Martha Stout, 4% of the population could be defined as a sociopath. Of course, this is a shocking statistic because that translates to the idea that 1 in 25 people in world are in fact sociopaths. Therefore, you are more than likely to come across a sociopath everyday and anybody that you know could be one, ready to wreak your life for their personal gain. Sociopaths don’t have to be one of the famous murderous psychopaths, they simply have to have no conscience for their actions, no matter what they do.
Sooo…let’s relate Martha’s ideas and examples from the book toward Bill in True Blood so that we can prove his true nature.
We know that Bill was a procurer for a very long time as he told Russell (this suggests that Bill had chosen this as a career or a way to advance his own power and that it was not simply an order from Queen Sophie Ann in the way that Eric was forced to sell vampire blood for Queen Sophie Ann). Therefore, Bill is much more accountable for his actions. Wouldn’t you agree that someone must have no conscience to basically choose kidnapping as a career advancer or money making venture? I don’t know about you, but I think I would feel a little too guilty about it to do something like that for personal gain. Bill never expresses guilt or remorse in any way until he is caught, which is a trait of sociopathy. Of course, it isn’t true guilt or remorse, they just don’t want to deal with the consequences.
In fact, Bill is apparently conscienceless enough to allow a beat down of his kidnapping victim (Sookie) in order to make his job a little easier in the long run.
How many of you with a conscience could have someone brought to the point of death to make your “job” a little easier?
No matter what he had done, how many of you could kill someone that had wronged someone you cared about with absolutely no guilt and as easily as running any other errand? This does not include active in-the-moment self-defense.
How many of us would just say “damn” and keep moving if we had just found out that we had almost ACCIDENTLY (this is up for debate) killed someone we loved? All this after we had just acted like we desperately wanted to save that person?
(of course, there are more examples but these are some of the most extreme examples that show Bill’s lack of a conscience. Having a lack of a conscience automatically makes you a sociopath according to Martha Stout.)
In the book, Martha speaks of a woman who lies about her background in order to advance her career and has no problems hurting people along the way. In a way, this sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
In the book, Martha talks about a sociopathic man that is willing to use anybody to get what he wants and the relationships in his life serve no purpose other than to advance his career. He even abuses his own mother and turns against the same bosses that helped advance him when it suits his purposes. Sound familiar?
In the book, Martha talks about a sociopathic man who is willing to kill anyone at the drop of a hat that threatens to expose his secrets to the community and the woman in his life or anyone that threatens his business in general. Sound familiar?
In the book, Martha discusses the dilemma a man has. Lose his job or leave his dog hungry in his house for days. Ultimately, the man decides to feed his dog because his conscience won’t allow him to leave the dog hungry for days. Stout is claiming that it is conscienceless to neglect your pets in such a manner. Therefore, neglecting your child would obviously be considered conscienceless behavior in Stout’s opinion as well. Sound familiar? Though Bill couldn’t help being away from Jessica a lot of the time, he neglected her when he had the opportunity to not neglect her. Bill dropped her off like an unwanted puppy at the shelter when he brought her to Eric and had no guilt about doing that. Bill neglected to teach her anything about being a vampire other than drinking Tru Blood , something he himself was not even truly doing. Bill did not bother teaching her how to defend herself either until she was needed to help him fight the werewolves; before that, he once again tried to get rid of her like an unwanted pet and I don’t believe it was “for her own good” as some claim. She was uneducated about how to handle herself and not prepared for life on her own, because she was again, neglected. Jessica was basically “begging for scraps” when she went to Pam for help. Stout would obviously consider Bill’s neglect of Jessica, his child, Sociopathic behavior.
However, nobody wants to believe they were manipulated by a sociopath so they go through a process of denial and Sookie and some audience members of True Blood were no exceptions so they make excuses that Stout says “are no where near the truth.”
Bill had to do that, it’s not his fault! ; Bill couldn’t help himself from killing Uncle Bartlett after hearing that! ; He couldn’t stop himself! ; Bill didn’t mean to neglect Jessica, he basically had to! ; Lorena made Bill do that! ; Bill has to protect Sookie from Eric, and incidentally, Pam, because he tasted her! ; etc….etc…etc.
My personal favorite is the claim that: “Bill loves Sookie so he would never hurt her on purpose or do anything that wasn’t with the best intentions toward her.”
News Flash: People with a conscience can love. People without a conscience are not capable of love. Bill has no conscience so he is not capable of love. Sure, people without a conscience can become attached to people or things because of what they may provide to them (delicious blood, sex with an attractive fairy, and supposed redemption in Bill’s case). But they cannot be truly selfless or truly love because they have no conscience.
People can continue to make excuses for Bill and decide that he’s the one for Sookie on their own, but they are continuing to be played by a Sociopath through the screen (which was Ball’s intention I am sure). However, the bottom line is that Bill is not worthy of Sookie’s love or capable of redemption because ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS: Bill has no conscience, and is therefore, a sociopath.