You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
charlottesometimes 's review for:
Dead Until Dark
by Charlaine Harris
I'm one of the many people who only read this book because of the TV series. Which has left me rather confused. The series is generally faithful to the book, with a little extra padding and some sub-plots to fill out the running time. The characters, the events, the plot arc, all substantially unchanged. And yet True Blood is an excellent series, and Dead until Dark is an absolutely appallingly written book whose lead character could not be less likeable.
Sookie Stackhouse has literally one interesting feature, namely telepathy. This one feature has ruined her entire life by preventing her from being a completely vapid blonde airhead, as is her dream. Instead she sits about wasting her life waiting for a man to save her by having sex with her. Eventually Vampire Bill turns up, and as he fulfills her criteria of having an unreadable mind and a fairly good body she commences to have regular, cliché-ridden sex with him, whilst in no way seeming to actually like him or have anything in common with him. There are also some murders happening, which is a bit annoying because they effect Sookie. Eventually her grandmother is killed, which is mildly irritating for her and occasions Vampire Bill getting her the most ridiculous bodyguard of all time and thereby making the book actually painful to read. Various people are vaguely suspected of the murder, which is violently and yet boringly signposted by the author. Finally the murderer is caught, which is good because the situation was getting on Sookie's nerves. The end.
There seem to me to be two key reasons why the TV series is infinitely better than the book:
1. The writers of the TV series seem to have an awareness of concepts such as irony, social relevance and character.
2. The writers of True Blood have some basic understanding of how to write.
Charlaine Harris is one of the most ham-fisted writers whose works I have ever had the misfortune to read. She has no understanding whatsoever of first-person narration, rendering her protagonist an unrealistic and unlikeable figure prone to making plot-enhancing statements whether they are relevant to her or not, and with a pathological obsession with the details of clothing and furniture. Harris’ only narrative technique is blandly stating whatever it is she wishes to convey. Thus if Sookie is tired she will say “I was tired”. If she is upset that her grandmother is dead she will say “I was sad about gran having been murdered”. If the author wishes to indicate that there is potential danger in a situation Sookie will say “Uh-oh. I just realised that this whole thing could go all bad, with all people killed by vampires and things”. She will then proceed as the plot requires, the previous statement having had no relevance other than hammering the reader over the head with the plot. All character development and supposed suspense is created in this same, lazy way. Meanwhile Sookie proceeds through the plot with the kind of naivety only possible in either a disingenuous sociopath or a badly-written idiot. Harris counteracts this by the ingenious method of having Sookie occasionally make comments such as “People think I’m stupid, but I’m not”. Unfortunately, the access to her private thoughts afforded by her position as narrator makes it clear to all readers that she is undeniably stupid. Harris’s tendency to make bald statements about the characters or plot, which are in no way supported by the text itself gives the whole thing a strange, unintentionally satirical bent which sits oddly with the complete lack of depth the novel displays.
If Charlaine Harris had any brains then she would be either incredibly jealous of or incredibly grateful to the writers, cast and crew of True Blood and their ability to take exactly the same ingredients she has used and turn her sow’s ear into a silk purse. Sadly, I doubt she has any idea of the difference between what she has created and what eventually emerged as a TV show. Consequently I see little chance of her works improving beyond facile pap. I’ve got the rest of the Sookie Stackhouse series of novels to get through yet though, so hopefully I’m wrong.
Sookie Stackhouse has literally one interesting feature, namely telepathy. This one feature has ruined her entire life by preventing her from being a completely vapid blonde airhead, as is her dream. Instead she sits about wasting her life waiting for a man to save her by having sex with her. Eventually Vampire Bill turns up, and as he fulfills her criteria of having an unreadable mind and a fairly good body she commences to have regular, cliché-ridden sex with him, whilst in no way seeming to actually like him or have anything in common with him. There are also some murders happening, which is a bit annoying because they effect Sookie. Eventually her grandmother is killed, which is mildly irritating for her and occasions Vampire Bill getting her the most ridiculous bodyguard of all time and thereby making the book actually painful to read. Various people are vaguely suspected of the murder, which is violently and yet boringly signposted by the author. Finally the murderer is caught, which is good because the situation was getting on Sookie's nerves. The end.
There seem to me to be two key reasons why the TV series is infinitely better than the book:
1. The writers of the TV series seem to have an awareness of concepts such as irony, social relevance and character.
2. The writers of True Blood have some basic understanding of how to write.
Charlaine Harris is one of the most ham-fisted writers whose works I have ever had the misfortune to read. She has no understanding whatsoever of first-person narration, rendering her protagonist an unrealistic and unlikeable figure prone to making plot-enhancing statements whether they are relevant to her or not, and with a pathological obsession with the details of clothing and furniture. Harris’ only narrative technique is blandly stating whatever it is she wishes to convey. Thus if Sookie is tired she will say “I was tired”. If she is upset that her grandmother is dead she will say “I was sad about gran having been murdered”. If the author wishes to indicate that there is potential danger in a situation Sookie will say “Uh-oh. I just realised that this whole thing could go all bad, with all people killed by vampires and things”. She will then proceed as the plot requires, the previous statement having had no relevance other than hammering the reader over the head with the plot. All character development and supposed suspense is created in this same, lazy way. Meanwhile Sookie proceeds through the plot with the kind of naivety only possible in either a disingenuous sociopath or a badly-written idiot. Harris counteracts this by the ingenious method of having Sookie occasionally make comments such as “People think I’m stupid, but I’m not”. Unfortunately, the access to her private thoughts afforded by her position as narrator makes it clear to all readers that she is undeniably stupid. Harris’s tendency to make bald statements about the characters or plot, which are in no way supported by the text itself gives the whole thing a strange, unintentionally satirical bent which sits oddly with the complete lack of depth the novel displays.
If Charlaine Harris had any brains then she would be either incredibly jealous of or incredibly grateful to the writers, cast and crew of True Blood and their ability to take exactly the same ingredients she has used and turn her sow’s ear into a silk purse. Sadly, I doubt she has any idea of the difference between what she has created and what eventually emerged as a TV show. Consequently I see little chance of her works improving beyond facile pap. I’ve got the rest of the Sookie Stackhouse series of novels to get through yet though, so hopefully I’m wrong.