Archives

100 Books in 2011 review: Dead as a Doornail

Dead as a Doornail is the fifth in Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse series. In honour of the fact that there’s a review for each one on this blog I’ve created a new category just for these. (Having just done that, it appears I missed one. There’s no review for Dead to the World, which I’m sure I read, but I don’t keep books so can’t go back to it. Annoying.)

Anyway, moving on. When I started reading the Sookie Stackhouse series it was because I was really enjoying True Blood and I was curious to see how the TV series would be different to the book. With season 2, True Blood diverged quite a bit so it was not really possible to compare it with Living Dead in Dallas. There is one point that is still worth picking up.

That point is about character. Almost all of the supporting characters have greater depth in True Blood. I said that I thought this was a combination of first person POV in the books and the greater space for character development in the TV series. By book five, I’m beginning to wonder if that’s really what’s going on. The characters that have been in the books from the beginning are still quite thin, with the exception of Eric who is more real. It was notable in this book that the characters that are here for just this story are a name, a brief physical description and a tic or two. While the writing is noticeably more competent than it was in the first book, characterisation isn’t much better. Having read lots of first person POV books in the last couple of years (and having been paying attention to the writing) I don’t think that this POV necessarily leads to poor characterisation. Some writers manage to do it well.

What really rankled was the poverty of female characters. There was a lot about Sookie that made her a great female character to start with and I felt that some of this is becoming lost. Tara is Sookie’s best friend but she has barely any impact on the story. In this novel, it felt like she was only there as a plot device. The best friend relationship is never established except for Sookie telling us this. The two of them don’t seem to spend time together and Tara is not who Sookie goes to for emotional support. She is certainly not the intriguing, complex character that she is in True Blood. The same is true for Arlene. In Dead as a Doornail, Sookie is surrounded by various supernatural men who are desperate to get with her. They are literally lining up. Which basically makes this a book about a hot chick who has all the dudes after her and no meaningful relationships with anyone. Disappointing. And much less feminist than it was because it reduces Sookie to an object to be possessed.

Sookie’s feminist credentials also slip in terms of the plot of Dead as a Doornail. In Dead until Dark, Sookie investigates, takes action, and eventually saves herself and I loved that. In Dead as a Doornail, stuff is done to Sookie, she’s manipulated into participating into things, and other people save her. The plot is that someone is shooting shifters and her brother is implicated. Or at least, it says he is on the back of the book but I didn’t feel that came across particularly well. In fact, the culprit is a minor character who appears to have the red shirt role. At the end, I felt a bit cheated by the resolution of the plot.

In spite of these major problems, I did still enjoy Dead as a Doornail. It’s an easy read and not very long. It’s fun and undemanding.

True Blood Season 1 vs. Dead until Dark

A few posts ago I promised a comparison of the first series of True Blood and the first novel of Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse series, Dead until Dark. The UK airing of True Blood has now finished and I thought I’d better get on with it before I forgot entirely.

The purpose of the comparison is, as with any of my reviews, to look at the elements of writing and how they were handled differently in each case. It is not to make a value judgement about the content. Disclaimer over, let’s do it.

It’s interesting to compare a single short novel with a TV series of 12 episodes. There is a lot more space for character development of minor characters and world building. Plus, the first tv series benefitted from several of the books in the series already being written. If anyone has read the later books, perhaps they can comment on whether developments in the novels were taken advantage of?

POV. Dead until Dark is written in first person, from the point of view of Sookie Stackhouse. True Blood has other povs. In this case I think it is good to have some insight into Bill’s story – what’s happening to him away from Sookie. This wasn’t covered in the novel and while that didn’t detract from the novel, it definitely added to the series. However, it appears that Bill didn’t become a vampire official (I want to say sheriff, but I’m not sure that’s right) in True Blood.

The additional pov characters also helped deliver deeper, more solid characters for True Blood. This is particularly true for Jason Stackhouse who is really quite flimsy in the book. His relationship to his sister seems to be kept the same but because we can see what’s going on in his life that Sookie is not party to, he becomes a more sympathetic character.

There are several additional and enhanced characters in the TV series. Tara, who is my favourite, is completely absent from the book. (I don’t know whether she appears in later books??) Lafayette, who I also like very much, is barely mentioned in the book and gets a fully developed role in the series. This is very much an improvement and gives the series a vehicle to explore social themes notably absent from the novel. Note to self: this highlights the limitations of first person pov in certain types of story. Also, I really hope that’s not Lafayette’s body in the back of Andy Bellefleur’s car at the end of True Blood.

Sadly, my hopes that the reveal of the killer would be more effectively foreshadowed in True Blood have been dashed. Episode 11 has a couple of clues and there was one clue a little earlier on, so it’s not come totally out of the blue as it did in the book. What I want from a whodunnit is to not be able to guess who the villain is, but to know that I could have worked it out when I’m given the answer. That really didn’t happen in Dead until Dark; Sookie was being chased through the woods and I was all ‘Rene? Really?’ However, the lead up to Rene’s attempt on Sookie’s life was much better handled in the TV series.

I loved that Sookie got the kill. This happened in both the book and the tv series. Throughout both, Sookie is presented as a strong woman who can look after herself. In the last episode of True Blood both Sam and Bill try to come to her rescue and fail epically. Brilliant. Sookie Stackhouse, most unlikely feminist icon.

What the novel did better than the series though, was to put Bill, Jason and Sam much more convincingly in the frame for the murders. There was a point about three-quarters of the way through the book where I was thinking it really could turn out to be Sam. Bill and Jason were both serious contenders up until half way through. In True Blood, there was never any real suggestion that either Bill or Sam could have been the culprit. Andy Bellefleur’s character/role was the only one that was downgraded for the series and I think that was a shame. His probing at Sam in particular never seemed very convincing.

Jason was clearly implicated at the beginning of the series but it never really came to anything. I do think that this was because he got to be a pov character and the trade off for his character development meant that he couldn’t be convincingly implicated. I think it was worth it. Jason is far more entertaining in True Blood.

I feel I should say that I couldn’t put Dead until Dark down. Whatever its many limitations, it was a compelling plot. And a worthwhile read; throughout I found myself thinking about how I would rewrite scenes to release their potential. Good for my development as a writer but there was always a sense of unrealised potential. I’m delighted that it was brought out so well in the tv series.

So, I can’t wait for True Blood Season 2 in 2010 and in the meantime I’ll slake my thirst with a couple more of the books.

I might have a vampire fetish…

I like horror in general and I like vampire stuff, but no more than any other creature of the night. But now I’m not so sure.

My favourite thing in the world is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but that doesn’t automatically translate to a vampire fetish. Not on it’s own. I like Ann Rice and Dracula but I can do without cheesy vampire b movies.

Then along comes True Blood and I think I might be developing a little obsession. Three episodes in and I can’t wait for the next one. The anticipation is too much to handle so I order book 1 of the Charlaine Harris novels the series is based on.

Which leads me down an analytical path because the series is so much better than the book. There’s a lot of learning there which I’m working into a forthcoming post. And while I’m in a reflective, analytical mood it occurs to me that I might have a vampire fetish. More to ponder…