Meet Your Maker

As most of us have, I’ve often wondered why Alan Ball felt it necessary to change Eric’s backstory with regard to his maker so radically and to a lesser extent, why he gave Bill a child in Jessica. When you think about it, both changes are significant departures from the book series.

It seemed on the surface that changing the identity of Eric’s maker, and bringing him into the story so early was simply to allow the writers licence to show Eric in a more sympathetic light. Similarly, it seemed that giving Bill a child in Jessica was to humanise Bill, make him more sympathetic, and to introduce some comic relief.

But I can’t help thinking there is also a long term plan being enacted here.

In the books, we had the following scenario:

Bill had a maker, Lorena – but no child.
Eric had a child, Pam – but no maker (at least not one involved in the story – yet).

With the addition of Jessica and the changes made to Godric’s character, we have a slightly different scenario on True Blood, in which each vampire now has both a maker – and a child:


It’s noteworthy that the True Blood writers have chosen to even things out as far as direct “family” relationships go. As much as I loved Godric, changing Eric’s back story always bothered me – but noticing how it sets up the mirrored relationships above got me to wondering whether these changes were actually made with a very specific purpose in mind.

These changes have resulted in the creation of two “families” that are being used by the writers to mirror eachother. Both families have identical makeup – a maker, their child, and a “grandchild” (for want of a better word). Yet one family is functional, stable and well-adjusted [and I realise this is absurd language to use in reference to vampires but you get the point I’m trying to make here, right?], and the other is dysfunctional, volatile and unstable.

Lorena - Not big on consultative decision making.

Consider the following:

Godric had been watching Eric fight and chose him to be turned as his companion, after seeing something in him that he admired. He found him dying and gave him a choice. Eric was turned willingly.
Lorena took Bill into her house after he happened upon her at random. She too wanted a companion. But she gave Bill no choice in his turning. Bill was unwilling and had to be tricked.

Godric saved Eric.
Lorena murdered Bill.

Eric then chose Pam as his child, and turned her for companionship**. Pam, like Eric before her, was willing.
Bill did not choose Jessica – she was chosen for him – and he was ordered to turn her as punishment. Jessica, like Bill before her, was unwilling and had to be forced.

Eric has a relationship with Godric based on trust, love, respect and shared experiences that he seems to hold sacred.
Bill has a relationship with Lorena based on mistrust, resentment, and shared experiences that he tries to bury.

Pam’s relationship with Eric is founded on respect, loyalty and a mutual understanding.
Jessica’s relationship with Bill is riddled with misunderstandings, volatile outbursts and mutual resentment.

Eric taught Pam what she needed to know to survive as a vampire. He was also willing to fill this role for Jessica in the short term, even though he is not her maker.
Bill has tried his hardest to avoid teaching Jessica much of anything – first palming her off onto Eric and then being completely preoccupied with Sookie on her return.

Through these two “families”, patterns of behaviour are emerging that repeat themselves through the generations. Just as they do in human families.

We have already seen that Godric, Eric and Pam are in control of their destinies. They make their own decisions, and they own those decisions. They don’t blame anyone else – even when they probably could. Have we seen Eric whining like a bitch yet about the fact that SA has him selling V? Did we see Godric even attempt to shirk any responsibility or blame for the Dallas mess? Do we see Pam moaning about anything she does for Eric? No. Because this side of the fence can suck it up, and deal. They are strong, and they are resilient.

The writers even changed Godfrey’s name to Godric – presumably to connect Eric’s name with that of his maker. A clever way to subtly reinforce their positive relationship and family connection in the minds of the audience, is it not?

Could you be a companion of death? Could you walk with me through the world...through the dark? I'll teach you all I know. I'll be your father, your brother, your child.

The relationship between Lorena, Bill and Jessica could not be more different to that of Godric, Eric and Pam. These three are perpetual victims – always at the mercy of others, always able lay blame with everyone else for their misfortune. Even when that misfortune is a direct result of their own poor decision making or lack of backbone. Lorena is a victim of her vampire nature, to the extent that she uses it to justify the most abhorrent, sadistic behaviour and a lack of desire to evolve. She is also a victim of her obsessive fixation on Bill. Bill blames either Lorena, or Eric (and eventually Sophie Anne I’m willing to bet) for practically every mess he finds himself in. Jessica blames Bill or Maxine Fortenberry or her father for her various issues. This family is passive, weak – and most likely doomed.

If I were Jessica Hamby I would be pretty nervous, right about now. If there is something to the idea that behaviours in these relationships are repeating down the line, she is fucked – not to put too finer point on it. Based on the patterns playing out between Lorena, Bill and Jessica I think it’s likely that Jessica will eventually turn on Bill. And probably end up dead as a result.

There is a very clear dichotomy being set up here that did not exist in the book series, at least not in this form. Charlaine used various methods to contrast Eric and Bill, but for the film medium many of them just would not translate (the frequent hot/cold metaphors, for example). Ball has come up with a different, yet still very effective way of showing us what is really going on with the characters of Eric and Bill. Or more correctly, showing us where the writers are heading with them. When the series is over and can be viewed as a cohesive whole, I suspect the impact of these changes will be much clearer.

So take heart, fellow Viking lovers. Some heinous crimes have been committed against Eric, and the Eric and Sookie pairing on True Blood. But I really am starting to come around to the idea there is going to be a reason for all of this in the end.

Or maybe it’s just the Prozac talking.

**[I realise this hasn’t really been covered in TB yet. I’m surmising, based on the nature of their relationship, Pam’s turning in the books, and comments made by Kristin Bauer which support the premise that TB Pam was turned voluntarily].

90 Responses to “Meet Your Maker”

  1. 1 sunnynala
    March 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    This is most excellent! The compare and contrast between Eric and Bill becomes sharper and sharper as time goes on and the differences in the “family” circumstances illustrate this very well. It is most definitely part of a long term plan.

    Many people here feel Eric’s character is being attacked by AB, but think about this parallel for a minute: Eric’s character has been attacked several times in the series, starting with the raid on Fangtasia in s1e4, the silver attack by Royce, in the FoTS church, the bombing (Bill wasn’t affected at all by the bombing) and now we have the were attack in Sookie’s house. The poor guy is practically under siege and it’s only going to get worse. We have yet to see him instigating an attack, as we have Bill with the Chicago couple.

    The deeper one looks the better Eric looks in comparison to Bill.

    • 2 Eva
      March 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm

      You think in 1000 years Eric has never attacked anyone unprovoked, has never murdered, stolen? You don’t remember the comments to and by his maker? Godric “We ARE terrifying”.
      Godric: “We don’t belong here”. Eric:”You taught me there was no right and wrong, only survival or death”.
      Godric wastefuly, savagely murdered Eric’s good and loyal men to get to Eric and turn him.
      In a world where vampires are taking their place in society, alongside humans, Eric ripped apart a human criminal, rather that bring him to justice in the correct, civil, American way.
      They were killers too, they were ruthless too.

      • 3 sunnynala
        March 29, 2010 at 2:04 pm

        At least Godric killed those men quickly and efficiently because he HAD no choice but to hunt and feed to survive. this is what it is SUPPOSED to look like when a ruthless vampire hunts to survive.

        On the other hand, Bill and Lorena savagely killed two innocent people and made them suffer horribly because they ENJOYED their depraved sport. they mocked and ridiculed them and rolled around having sex in the blood of the still living woman. They did not even have the decency to put to poor woman out of her misery. Then they stole their house, and probably money and other possessions. They killed for the thrill of it and for profit, NOT merely to survive.

        If you don’t see the difference here then I feel sorry for you.

      • 4 skadi
        March 29, 2010 at 4:45 pm

        [Godric wastefuly, savagely murdered Eric’s good and loyal men to get to Eric and turn him.]

        I think it’s a fair point to say that both Eric and Godric have made unprovoked attacks in their time. And I suspect that we’ll see some of that in S3. But I think S2 made a big point with Godric’s storyline by showing how things can change for vampires. And hopefully we might see that Eric heeded what Godric had to say about the fate of vampires (the scene with Lorena, in the Dallas nest)

        And staying with the theme of family that SVB has so brilliantly dissected above, you could argue that in functional families, children learn from their parents mistakes and try not to repeat them. Maybe we’ll see that Eric has a faster learning curve than Godric.

        • 5 Pat
          March 30, 2010 at 11:58 am

          Great discussion, as always, and I agree with most of what has been said but for the fact that Godric killing Eric’s men has always troubled me. One of the few characteristics book and TV Eric have in common is a fierce sense of loyalty, wouldn’t that have made him refuse Godric’s offer of immortality when he just watched him slaying his men??!! He starts by stating he wished he could kill him but all of a sudden he wants to join him??! It just doesn’t seem to add up right… has anyone come up with an explanation for this?

          • 6 skadi
            March 30, 2010 at 12:34 pm

            When Godric makes his offer, Eric is mortal and, more importantly, dying. I think the instinct to live would outweigh the sight of his men being killed.

            And I think we have to remember that 1000+ years ago, the world was a more brutal place, killing and battle are part of Erics life. Godric has chosen him because he’s an amazing warrior and I think as such, he’s probably made many instant decisions on the battlefield to protect his own life, as much as the lives of his men.

            When Godric offers him immortality, we can’t really be sure Eric fully understands that he’s being offered life as a Vampire. I really think that instinct to live would overwhelming. And maybe in that split second he thought he’d be able to take revenge on Godric if he lived, who knows?

          • 7 LLE
            March 30, 2010 at 2:31 pm

            Godric did not kill Eric’s men in sport. Bill and his maker killed people for sport. Vampires do kill people for food.

      • 8 Ashley
        March 29, 2010 at 6:32 pm

        Yes Eric murdered Royce instead of bringing him to human justice just as Bill murdered Uncle Bartlett instead of bringing him to human justice. As vampires, of course they have murdered people. But the fact is both Bill and Eric murdered a human on the show. And Bill also killed the Rattrays instead of bringing them to “justice in the correct, civil, American way.” So actually Bill has a one up on Eric in the murdering department on True Blood. And in Erics case, he killed an actual murderer in Royce, who along with the three vampires killed a human in the fire he started. In Bills case, Uncle Bartlett was an old man and although what he did was disgusting, in a human courtroom, he would never have been sentenced to death or life in prison for child molesting, because he didnt rape her he just touched her. So what Bill did to him was far beyond what any “human” justice would have done.

        • 9 sunnynala
          March 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm

          Very, very good points Ashley.

          • 10 Ashley
            March 30, 2010 at 2:23 am


            • 11 lkc
              March 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm

              Yeah Ashley, Glad you said it. I am sooo sick of Bill lovers saying Eric murdered Royce and tortured Lafayette, but give Bill a pass on Uncle Bartlett and the Rattrays. Double standard anyone, or is it just OK because Bill loves Sookie? If that’s the case seems to me we can all go out and kill whomever we want if they have harmed our loved ones!

              • 12 Ashley
                March 31, 2010 at 2:32 am

                And the fact is he sure as hell didnt love her when he killed the Rattrays…just sayin! They’d had two conversations, and it was the second episode of season 1.

                • April 1, 2010 at 2:43 am

                  Also, Eric is a sheriff, not in the American sense but in the medieval feudal sense. As keepers of the peace, they sometimes dispensed justice. I’m thinking the vampire sheriffs turn vamp perps over to the magister but deal with human ones themselves.

                  It looked to me like Eric’s temper got the best of him, but I don’t think Royce would have ever lost Fangtasia alive. Vampire justice was going to be served one way or another. To attack Eric in front of Lafayette meant that Lafayette had to see the consequences.

        • 14 LLE
          March 30, 2010 at 2:43 pm

          If Royce did not attacked Eric, Royce might be a live. Eric did not killed Royce in sport.

      • 15 Ashley
        March 29, 2010 at 7:13 pm

        It wasnt mere survival for Bill an Lorena, it was pure sport, greed, and bloodlust. They took enjoyment in the couples suffering, took enjoyment in them watching each other die. So it was way beyond survival.

      • 16 VikingLover
        March 30, 2010 at 1:29 am

        [You think in 1000 years Eric has never attacked anyone unprovoked, has never murdered, stolen?]

        I’m sure he has Eva but the fact of the matter is that we have not yet been shown this side of Eric on TB yet. Once it is shown (perhaps in S3) then we can all judge but until then, we can only judge what we HAVE SEEN so far – what we have been purposely shown. What we have been shown is Bill murdering an innocent couple for the pure pleasure and enjoyment of it. And just make my point, I have attached the link to the video. Watch it and then tell me where you see Victim Bill in this video? Where is the hatred for Lorena? Where is the unwilling participant to the heinous murder of two innocent people? Where is the brooding Bill – Bill’s Louis to Lorena’s Lestat?

        Now compare and contrast that to what we have seen of Eric and Godric. Yes, Godric killed Eric’s companions – but he did it (as someone else on this blog has said) in an animalistic way – like the lion killing the antelope. He kills them like an animal – one who is used to killing for food and survival. Even the way he crouches by Eric is animalistic. A predator.

        And this leads us to Eric, SHERIFF of Area 5. Eric IS THE LAW in his area. It is his responsibility to dispense justice – vampire justice for crimes committed by and against vampires. The human in question killed vampires (and a human). I’m not saying that what he did was right – what I’m saying is to compare all 3 of their actions to the logic and motivation behind of each.

      • 17 LLE
        March 30, 2010 at 6:02 pm

        The human criminal killed three vampires and human. The human criminal attack Eric and if did not attacked Eric, he might still be alive.

  2. 18 Eva
    March 29, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Your comments started out well, and then you let your bias allow some lazy thinking. The two families are different, yes. But then you say Bill blames Lorena, Eric, QSA as if they in fact had nothing to do with the tragic events in his life. He was turned against his will, he is justified in ‘blaming’ Lorena. He did not choose to bring Sookie to work for Eric, he was ordered to. He did not want to stake Longshadow, he had to act after watching for Eric to control his partner, but stood motionless (that’s the way it was in TB, deal with it), he was forced to create Jessica, against his will, he was held hostage by his stronger maker, who was called in by Eric, he was ordered outside the Dallas mansion and away from Sookie by two sheriffs. Each of these situations was not a standard fork in the road, let me ponder what to do scenario. He IS being setup as a victim of circumstances, yes. Don’t blame the victim for things that are outside his control, there are enough other things he IS responsible for without impblying he is falsely blaming others for these events.

    • 19 sunnynala
      March 29, 2010 at 2:09 pm

      Instead of sucking it up and taking his responsibility like a man, Bill is a whiny bitch. Oh woe is me, nothing is ever my fault boo hoo. He may have been forced to turn Jessica (and who the FUCK said he needed to kill LS? Couldn’t he have flung him off of her until cooler heads could prevail?) but once he did, instead of taking his responsibility seriously because the poor girl had nobody else, he pawned her off and he’s neglected her ever since. Life can throw a lot of shit at us but it’s how we rise to the occasion, or not, in response to the shit that is the measure of a person, and Bill is a FAILURE.

      • 20 KittyKat
        March 29, 2010 at 2:12 pm

        “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade”. Bill simply let them rot.

      • March 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm

        Ah Sunny you so eloquently put in a paragraph the essence of the whole thing.

        What happens to Bill (or whose fault it is) is beside the point. Everyone has challenges and problems. It is how Bill deals with it – or doesn’t.

        Bill’s MO is to hide. Stick his head in the sand. Deny deny deny. Avoid, evade. He NEVER faces anything head on, never confronts anything until circumstances force him to (telling Sookie about Jessica is a prime example. Fessing up about Uncle Bartlett. Telling Sookie about Lorena – still waiting for THAT conversation. The list is long). It is difficult to feel such a character is “tragic”, or to have sympathy for them when their whole approach means they are destined to keep repeating their mistakes.

      • 25 Ashley H.
        March 30, 2010 at 2:03 am

        You crack me up, sunny 🙂 “Bill is a whiny bitch.” Cue Bill’s “I feel like a waitress” face. Oh, Billy *hair flip, lol

      • 26 Eva
        March 30, 2010 at 9:17 am

        Bill couldn’t fling off Longshadow. There’s the whole older=stronger rule in this story. The only one who could have stopped a death (either LS or Sookie) was Eric, who stood idly by.
        Why would Sookie ever love somebody who would stand by and watch her die?
        Bill has been set up as the underdog for the purposes of the story, whatever they may be.
        It is interesting to see different ways people react to an underdog. Some people root for him and hope he can overcome obstacles. Some people laugh, taunt, ridicule and twist facts to increase their sick pleasure.

        • 27 Jo
          March 30, 2010 at 11:14 am

          “Why would Sookie ever love somebody who would stand by and watch her die?”

          funny you say that, you are misinformed on the books who kills LS to save Sookie is Eric, while Bill stood idly by as you say, then the sentence above apply to Bill?
          TB has changed this fact to Bill look more “heroic” as a character because he is very weak. But that does not change the fact that acts of Eric gave to Bill, he seems to be better than he is.
          And the argument that the show is different from the Books not help here, because the act is the same.

          • 28 LLE
            March 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm

            In the book Bill did nothing. If I was Sookie would, I would be very upset with Bill not protecting Sookie from Longshadow. That was a clue that something was wrong in that relationship.

            • March 30, 2010 at 9:01 pm

              The only one who could have stopped a death (either LS or Sookie) was Eric, who stood idly by.
              Why would Sookie ever love somebody who would stand by and watch her die?

              Can I also point out that Bill stood by and did nothing in the books, and unlike Eric on the show, BILL WAS DATING HER.

              But since this is not the books, I’ll stick to the issue Eva raised.

              I would just ask one simple question – Why would Eric, who is not dating Sookie, who barely knows Sookie, and who had absolutely zero obligation or attachment to her at that point – risk his own life to save hers?

              Why would Sookie expect him to save her – or hold him accountable for not doing so down the line?

              More importantly, why would you expect him to?

              • 30 LLE
                March 30, 2010 at 9:54 pm

                In the book Eric wanted Sookie and when he found out that she could read human minds and he used her with accountant and Ginger.

                What got me was Bill could not understand why Eric killed Longshadow. If I was Sookie, I would dump him right there. That was another clue that something was wrong in that relationship. Sookie has very low-self esteem and does not think what she worth at all. This is the book

                Sookie does not expected anything from Eric in the book and TB.

                On the show, Eric meet Sookie the second time when Bill stake Longshadow. Eric told Bill that he would not killed vampire in front of another vampire. Bill did it so fast and before Eric could think. TB wanted Bill to be the hero because he wanted Bill to be a maker and bring the character of Jessica and would not work with Eric. I have no problem with the story that Bill save Sookie on the show. On the show, Eric was asking Bill questions and Bill told him that Sookie had to be saved. Eric was not on much in season one. There another clue that something is not right in Bill and Sookie and Bill not truthful with Sookie.

                Eric did saved Sookie in season 2.

              • 31 Dwimordene
                March 30, 2010 at 10:08 pm

                _”And more importantly, why would Sookie expect him to – or hold him accountable for not doing so down the line?”_

                She didn’t and she won’t.

                And from then, a lot of things have changed. Eric has already risked his life for her. And done some other things, as it was letting her take Laffy and paying her and allowing Bill to go too (he had a deal with her and didn’t need to make any other to take her to Dallas). Also sparing her brother (remember his smile when he talked with Jason at the nest, he seemed quite paternal… He seemed to feel good too). Also meeting the queen (Eric wouldn’t like to feel being controlled).

                And all this things he does them for her, he doesn’t tell her and she doesn’t know. I’m not saying that he does it for love… Even if love comes sometime, he doesn’t even know which feelings he has (as he said to Laffy “Anything that is important to Sookie I find it is curious”).

                He began the game in order to get out from boredom (we saw him quite bored at the bar the first time), he had found something curious, that became amazing, that brought a mystery, that challenged him… Something thrilling (“There is not much thrill left”).

                Crap… Sorry, it was not the place… I was thinking “aloud”. lol

                • March 30, 2010 at 11:39 pm

                  It just seems like an absolutely absurd argument to me – and I hear it all the time. It goes like this:

                  – Eric is a self absorbed bastard who is only interested in Sookie because Bill has her/for his own political gain/as a sex object. And Sookie hates Eric.

                  Then in the next breath – Eric stood by and would have let Longshadow kill Sookie. Eric didn’t care about Sookie in the FOTS, only Godric. And on it goes.

                  Does the inconsistency of this argument really need to be pointed out? OK obviously it does. If Eric is a self absorbed bastard who is only interested in Sookie for what she can do for him, and if Sookie hates his guts as much as is claimed – then why hold Eric morally accountable to her? Why vilify the character for not behaving like….a love interest? It’s twisted logic and it makes no sense.

                  I will entertain any way out theory anyone wants to post on this blog, but please god – let it make sense. That’s all I ask.

                • 33 Ashley
                  March 31, 2010 at 2:52 am

                  Yes Eric could have killed Jason for taking part in the murder of another vampire but just let him go. He also could have killed Lafayette and didnt. Vampire punishments are a lot more brutal than human ones. Wasnt that made clear when Bill was taken before the magister? They said the usual punishment would be to lock him in a coffin with silver chains for five years. Being starved for three weeks in a dungeon is tame compared to what could have been done. And i wont even say anything about the Rattrays and Uncle Bartlett and the lack of “human” justice, i said it in an earlier response.

                  • 34 VampirePamsGirl
                    April 1, 2010 at 3:32 am

                    Firstly, the post was awesome and definitely shines light on the reasons that Eric, Godric, and Pam are so loved by so many people. I mean, even those Bill people seem to like Godric and Pam, right? Lol.

                    Secondly, ya’ll been doing a great job of arguing for Eric, lol. I thought of a whole bunch of stuff to counteract the ‘poor Bill, evil Eric’ crap, but it’s pretty much already been said. Though I do have to mention that with the Lafayette punishment thing, (Ashley, you touched on it here talking about vampire punishments being more brutal) Eric even told Bill, who did NOT even try to deny it, that many other vampires would have done worse in punishing Laffy for his crimes.

                    • 35 Ashley
                      April 5, 2010 at 4:50 am

                      Yes, you are so right about the interaction between Eric and Bill. Bill knew damn well that Eric could have done a lot worse. Most would have. And Bill even defended Eric to Sookie on the way home in the car. Bill knows Sookie thinks of him as a “good” vampire, but Bill knows the truth and says it in the car. He says, “Vampires, humans, or whatever are often capable of both good and evil, often simultaneously.” Bill is talking about himself there, not just Eric. Bill is speaking of vampires as a whole. And honestly, Bill doesnt give a crap about Lafayette. He didnt even pretend to. Bill didnt offer to take Lafayette to the hospital, Sookie did. Bill didnt offer to take Lafayette to his door, Sookie offered FOR him. All Bill said when they were dropping him off was to agree with Lafayette that he should lie about where he was for those two and half weeks. Bill didnt sympathize with Lafayette at all. So i dont get where people are coming from condemning Eric for Lafayette. If it werent for Sookie, Bill wouldnt have batted an eyelash in Lafayettes direction. Sookie just doesnt get anything at all. For some reason, she thinks Bills different, no questions asked.

        • 36 VikingLover
          March 30, 2010 at 11:57 am

          [The only one who could have stopped a death (either LS or Sookie) was Eric, who stood idly by.]

          Yes, in that you are absolutely correct – Eric did not kill LS. This is true. However, you have to look at it, again, in the context of the show. That is why we were shown the Magister scene – vampires believe they are superior to humans and a vampire would not kill another vampire for a human – especially since it is against the law and Eric is the law. This has been drilled into our brains in S1. Is it right? No. But does it make sense given what we have been shown on the show? Yes. Let’s not forget that Bill only protects Sookie because he has been ordered to do so – it’s his job. The one that is acting out of vampire character is Bill. Don’t you find that a bit strange?

          What I find interesting, Eva, that out of all of the arguments listed here: Bill’s neglect of Jessica, Bill killing the couple, Bill protecting Sookie not out of love but because of an edict (“Sookie must be protected”), Bill continuing in his bad behavior even after he gained freedom from Lorena – out of all of that, the only argument you address is Long Shadow. It’s interesting that you skip over all of the rest.

          “twist facts”: which facts are we twisting? What we discuss here is what has been written and shown on the show. I’m not sure which of the facts we addressed are being twisted.

        • 38 LLE
          March 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm

          Eric meet Sookie for the second time and he was attractive to her but not enough to killed vampire in front of another vampire. Bill killed Longshadow so fast. Bill killed Longshadow because he was Sookie’s bodyguard and his job was to keep Sookie’s safe. The second season Eric did save Sookie when house blew up. The third season Eric get in a fight with were-wolf in Sookie’s house.

          • 39 Ashley
            March 31, 2010 at 2:48 am

            Yeah i agree. It was the second time Eric met her. If Bill was in his place, he would have done the same.

        • 40 Ashley
          March 31, 2010 at 2:42 am

          What’s your response to the earlier comment i posted regarding the fact that Bill and Eric have both murdered people on the show, in fact Bill more. I find it interesting that you chose not to respond to the fact that Bill too has never brought the humans to “justice in the civil, American way.” So its okay because he loves Sookie? Is that what you are saying? He can murder anyone who hurts Sookie?

          Eric didnt love Sookie when the Longshadow thing happened. Bill supposedly did. If it had been just some random human, rest assured that BILL would have stood idly by. Eric had only met her once before that.

          Oh and in the books Bill stands by while the woman he supposedly loves is going to be killed. So go figure, the one who “loves” her in the books does nothing. In both instances Eric barely knows her, he just thinks she’s hot and her abilities are useful and interesting. No vampire would save a human they barely knew by killing the vampire attacking her. Vampires dont see humans the same way other humans see each other. They are higher on the food chain.

          • 41 Ashley
            March 31, 2010 at 2:43 am

            Oh and in the books Eric kills LS despite the fact that he doesnt love her at that point, facing penalties for it. He goes against what is acceptable for vampires because LS was stealing from him.

        • 42 Ashley
          March 31, 2010 at 2:55 am

          Not everybody has to like Bill. And it doesnt make us “sick” if we dont, and it doesn’t mean we have a “sick” sense of pleasure either.

    • 43 Ashley
      March 29, 2010 at 6:49 pm

      So because Bill was ordered to do these things, hes blameless? Yes Bill was turned against his will. He should DEAL with that, instead of blaming all his problems on the fact that he never wanted to be in the situation hes in. Eric didnt kill Longshadow on True Blood because he wanted bill to kill him. It was a test. The fact is, Bill cant blame everything bad that happens to him on Eric. He has lied to Sookie so many times. He could have told her about Jessica right after he turned her, but instead waited over two weeks and only told her when Sookie walked in and saw her. He could have told her that he killed Uncle Barlett, but he counted on the fact that he dumped him in the river to make it look like he drowned. In the show, after Sookie finds out about Jessica, she says to Bill pointe blank, “What else are you keeping from me?” And Bill, says, flatly, “Nothing.” And then after that i think in the next episode, or maybe the same one i dont remember, she finds out he killed Uncle Bartlett.He LIED straight to her face. And he’s hiding the fact that he knows her cousin Hadley, and he lied to Hadley and made her assume Gran was still alive. Bill obviously knows the Queen pretty well, and Hadley had met him before that night in Season 2 Episode 11. Bill is a liar. It may be partially due to his unfortunate circumstances, but he lies about things he doesnt even have to lie about. For example, Jessica. He keeps things from Sookie that she needs to know, which is the same as lying, because hes afraid of her reaction. Yet, when she found out about Jessica, Sookie even told him that she can handle the dark parts of his life. Yet, Bill still covers up the truth. He may be lying by omission, but its just as bad. Its the same thing as if, for example, your spouse/partner was cheating on you and you didnt ask if he/she was, so they didnt tellyou. But then you find out on your own. YOu would consider that a lie wouldnt you? The stuff Bill keeps from Sookie directly impacts her life and well being, yet its supposedly all Eric and Lorenas fault. If Bill had told her the truth about so many thing, things that hes probably still keeping from her, he could have saved himself from being a so-called “victim” of his circumstances.

      • 44 Ashley
        March 29, 2010 at 7:01 pm

        Oh and to add to my little argument, I believe the reason Bill lied to Hadley was because he didnt want her to come to BT to visit Sookie, which she would most likely do if she found out Gran had died.Or she would have wanted Sookie to come to the queens, which is even worse. Bill doesnt want Sookie to find out whatever “secrets” hes been hiding, which is why he didnt tell Hadley Gran is dead. Thats how it is on True Blood, and in the books. They are just approaching it a different way on the show.

        • 45 skadi
          March 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm

          Sookie is going to be pissed when she finds out Bill knows where Hadley is.

          (I realise you all thought of this already, but it just sort of hit me. She won’t have any reason to trust him.)

    • 47 Sarah StC
      March 29, 2010 at 8:51 pm

      Let’s not forget that although Bill was not in control of these situations, he did make the choice in how he reacted to them. After rewatching S1, I get the distinct impression that, while Bill does love Sookie, the excessive way in which he protects her implies there is more at stake than just his love for his girlfriend. There’s a big difference between “I must protect Sookie” and “Sookie must be protected”.

      • 48 LLE
        March 30, 2010 at 3:23 pm

        Bill was under orders from the queen to protect Sookie. What Sookie does not know is that she sleeping with her bodyguard. I believe Bill cares about her but I don’t he in love with her. Bill don’t want Eric to have her.

    • 49 VikingLover
      March 30, 2010 at 3:11 am

      [Don’t blame the victim for things that are outside his control, there are enough other things he IS responsible for without implying he is falsely blaming others for these events.]

      Then just what IS he responsible for? Plus your argument is a little like “what came first, the chicken or the egg”. None of the above would have happened (ie Long Shadow, Jessica, etc) if Bill had not taken the assignment the Queen gave him. And don’t think for a minute that a ruthless, intelligent Queen such as Sophie Ann is going to send a brooding, self-loathing, human loving vampire, who might just grow a conscience and thwart her sinister plans, on such a valuable mission. She knew what she was doing by sending Bill – a man with a lot of practice at deception – as is made clear during that couples clip. It was no accident and Bill was no hapless victim. Even Hadley was surprised that Bill “loved” Sookie. By the way, what does Bill do when he encounters Hadley? He does what he does best – he lies.

      Look at the end of the day, the facts are these:

      1) As soon as Bill started romping around with Lorena, becoming a willing participant and enjoying himself while doing so, he ceased being a victim.

      2) As soon as she RELEASED him and he CONTINUED to behave just as badly (joining the likes of Liam, Diane, and Malcolm), he ceased being victim.

      3) As long as he is following through with Queen SA’s plans in acquiring Sookie; shows no angst or anxiety in doing so; continues to take the job he has been assigned VERY seriously; has not once EVEN TRIED to tell Sookie the TRUTH, he ceased being a victim.

      4) The moment he started lying about things there were no reason to lie about (Jessica, Lorena, his past – he told Sookie he only killed “a little” when he was initially turned) he ceased being a victim.

      At least with Eric what we see is what we get. With Bill – not so much eh?

      Look, what Lorena did to Bill was terrible – she murdered him and took him away from his life. But since that time Bill has done NOTHING to alter his situation.

    • 51 LLE
      March 30, 2010 at 5:31 pm

      Bill could had told the judge that he not going to turn Jessica in a vampire. Bill had choices and he made it and it is responsible to teach Jessica but he does not spend much time with her. Most of his time, is with Sookie. It’s always someone else faults not Bill. After Bill breaks up with Lorena, Bill gets involved with another bad group of vampires.

  3. 52 Barbara
    March 29, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    This is a great paper … thesis … ummmm, what do you call it on a blog? hehehe Well, you get my drift. Now, if only Sookie can see these obvious differences between Bill and Eric.

    My problem is that I read the books just after I saw the first several episodes of TrueBlood. So, I already had sexy Stephen Moyer in my head as Bill in the books. Despite the evidence about Bill, I still can’t help “pulling” for him because of Stephen! Sad, ain’t it! LOL

    But don’t forget this: Eric is a 1000 years old and had a strong maker to give him solid foundation early in his vampire life. Bill is under 150 years old and had a weak maker, so his vampire foundation is weak and he is so much less experienced in “life”. If Bill was of a similar age to Eric, then we can truly blame Bill for his actions. But as it stands, he’s still a toddler in vampire age and tries too much to cling to humanity.

    So, I think Bill’s problems are partially his fault and partially the fault of his maker and lack of vampire maturity.

    • 53 PrettyVikingChains
      March 30, 2010 at 1:59 am

      Yes, Eric did have a “strong” maker–one who, at the time, was a vicious killer. Maybe not “evil” in the way that you could say Lorena was/is (the posts above cover this pretty well, so I won’t go into that). But when Godric turned Eric, he wasn’t the compassionate, human-loving vamp we saw in Dallas. He taught Eric how to be a “real” vampire–a survivalist, a killer. It was clear that Godric felt the need to repent at the end, and that was because he had done a lot of bad things, vampire or not. Bill’s maker also taught him how to be a killer, to role play, to “succeed.” Again, you can argue that Godric had a more natural, primitive, less vindictive way of going about it, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that Bill & Eric’s beginnings as vamps were so different. They were both taught to live as vampires, to not value human life, & presumably to find enjoyment out of their actions. Bill didn’t look so upset, “weak”, or hanging onto his humanity in his flashbacks killing that couple.
      I don’t think his age can be used as an excuse either. Look at Pam (who “treats everyday like it was Halloween”), or Jessica for that matter. Being a “young” vampire doesn’t mean you have to be all brooding all the time, it just depends on your perspective. I think his personality is just more of a type that wants somebody else to act & dismiss those who get in his way. Remember his human flashback of the war–he wanted to kill the boy who was stuck out in the open so that the enemy wouldn’t be drawn to them. Whereas Eric wanted to kill Godric for killing his men. I think those 2 flashbacks reveal a lot about the differences between the two.
      What always struck me as odd was that after enjoying his romps with Lorena so much, how he did such a turn around. He had already let go of his humanity, but now he wants it back? What changed? I find it hard to believe that he had become so “enlightened” like Godric so early in his life.
      Sorry for jumping around so much, & I hope it’s not as jumbled as it was in my head 🙂

      • 54 VikingLover
        March 30, 2010 at 2:22 am

        [Remember his human flashback of the war–he wanted to kill the boy who was stuck out in the open so that the enemy wouldn’t be drawn to them. Whereas Eric wanted to kill Godric for killing his men. I think those 2 flashbacks reveal a lot about the differences between the two.
        What always struck me as odd was that after enjoying his romps with Lorena so much, how he did such a turn around. He had already let go of his humanity, but now he wants it back? What changed? I find it hard to believe that he had become so “enlightened” like Godric so early in his life.]

        I agree 100%. Once again, it’s interesting when you compare and contrast the two – as we are meant to do. And these are FACTS – what we have actually been shown – not conjecture or interpretation.

        In regards to Bill’s turn around – you hit the nail on the nose! I think we are supposed to question such a miraculous turnaround. Especially since once he was released from Lorena, he went on to enjoy himself with Liam, Diane, and Malcolm. Compare the Bill we see from S1 ep 1 and it’s a complete turnaround.

        • 55 Ashley
          March 30, 2010 at 2:38 am

          Definitely…There was no miraculous turnaround. He used that as an excuse to get away from Lorena, along with threatening to kill himself. If he was a loner and hanging out some of the time with the likes of Liam, Diane, and Malcolm, Bill was definitely doing no kind of “mainstreaming”. And his age really isnt an excuse. When they showed him and Lorena murdering that couple, it was the 1920s i believe. And he was turned in 1860 or somewhere around there. So he had been a vampire for about 65 years. It wasnt like he was a freshly turned vamp like Jessica. Even Jessica, who is what a few weeks old, controls herself better than Bill did. When she bit Maxine and Hoyt pulled her off, she didnt try to fight him. She just reacts out of anger and cant control her emotions easily. Bill and Lorena killed for pure pleasure, and relished it. They were laughing and having a fantastic time doing it.

        • 56 LLE
          March 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm

          After he broke up with Lorena, Bill started to hang with Diane and other bad vampires. After he gotten involved with Sookie, his humanity came back that what Bill told Sookie.

        • 57 Dwimordene
          March 30, 2010 at 4:54 pm

          He said he was mainstreaming… But he called tru blood “that synthetic bottled blood”.

          *Though I don’t think mainstreaming means living with synthetic blood, but being able to live with humans, to have realations with them, not to be a menace. Bill seems to understand it in the other way, as he is alltime talking about tru blood. We can see his way of teaching Jessica (no relations and drinking tru blood).

          • 58 LLE
            March 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm

            Bill was pretending to mainstreaming. Bill is a phony. Bill rarely drinks from the bottled blood. Bill feeds off Sookie. The first episode he went with Rats to have sex and feed off them but he fell into trap and Sookie save him from them.

      • 59 sunnynala
        March 30, 2010 at 2:58 pm

        Remember his human flashback of the war–he wanted to kill the boy who was stuck out in the open so that the enemy wouldn’t be drawn to them

        I find this to be a common misconception of that scene. If this were true, it would ALMOST be an excuse for Bill wanting to kill the kid but it’s not true. The enemy was already in the vicinity, surrounding the Confederates and pinning them down. The Union knew exactly where they were and there were snipers everywhere. When Bill’s friend ran out to try and save the kid he was shot and killed.

        Even if there had been a danger of the kid alerting the enemy, that is not why Bill said he wanted to kill the kid. He said, and I quote: “I admit I considered shooting the boy myself just to shut him up”. And you have to remember, the kid cried all day and “begged us to help him. He knew he would die if we didn’t.” Bill’s friend had to “convince” him that shooting the boy like that would be an act of murder, not war.

        • 60 PrettyVikingChains
          March 30, 2010 at 3:21 pm

          Thanks for the reminder. It’s been a while since I’ve seen that episode, so the details got fuzzy. I guess it just made more sense to me that wanting to shut him up = not wanting to alert the enemy. It didn’t make sense to me why the Union soldiers would have them surrounded but then wait all day for them to make a move, & not kill the boy who was out in the open. But then I guess I just don’t understand war tactics, which is an entirely different topic!

          But I think our point is the same–even as a human, Bill did not act nobly & did not have much regard for others, even those who desperately needed his help.

          • 61 LLE
            March 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm

            When Eric was dying, his men did not leave him. Eric’s men care about him and he cared about them. Bill did care about his best friend who was killed but not much about other people.

            • 62 KittyKat
              March 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm

              That can also be seen in the books, where Eric died and was turned because he tried to help someone he shouldn’t have. Yet even there he never bitches about it, he sucked it up. Even as he missed his old life, family, etc. He knew he couldn’t stick around and left.

              • 63 LLE
                March 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm

                Eric in the books and the show enjoys life. Eric is no phony.

                On the show when Eric was human his men respected him and that tells me that he was great leader. In the book Eric is great leader that he cares about his vampires.

  4. March 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Very nice. I agree. I like.

  5. 65 Gigi
    March 29, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    This is an excellent assesment!! As I commented a few weeks ago, last season was one based on contrasts between both “families” and the way they reacted when where turned into vampires, as well as their view of their makers. When Pam said to Bill after he turned Jessica: “You’re a maker, you’re a Heroe!” she clearly expressed it from her own personal perception of Eric as her maker.

    [So take heart, fellow Viking lovers. Some heinous crimes have been committed against Eric, and the Eric and Sookie pairing on True Blood. But I really am starting to come around to the idea there is going to be a reason for all of this in the end.]

    I agree with you, but the real problem is how much they are going to hold the good/bad boy -the victim/victimizer dichotomy in the show, which is truly damaging Eric’s image on it. Unfortunately, the way Bill and therefore Jessica are victimized in TB is the means they have been used to attract the sympathy of the common viewer (who doesn’t know the background of the characters in the books of CH) towards Bill, beacuse they are providing a justification for his actions and behavior. And also is the best argument provided to BL’s, as evidenced by the comment made by Eva.

    • 66 sunnynala
      March 29, 2010 at 3:23 pm

      Honestly, and I know I keep harping on this, but the killing of the Chicago couple tells the viewers everything they need to know about Bill.

      Bill can “play” the victim all he wants–“This little human act you put on for your girlfriend is charming and all but we know better. Don’t we?” Truly, the audience has all the information it needs to judge Bill. If the Chicago murders are used as a Rosetta stone to judge all of his other actions by, as it should be, it becomes crystal clear he’s an actor, a con man, a ruthless murderer who is wearing a deceitful mask. If TB Bill was a story about how John Wayne Gacy was able to fool so many people it wouldn’t look much different than it does. I’m sure Gacy was charming and he probably often got his feelings and ego hurt, and he probably even loved his dog (if he had one, idk) but that doesn’t mean the fact that he’s capable of horrific depravity should be forgotten. Just because the audience seems to have forgotten tells us more about the audience than it does Bill.

      This is not AB’s fault but I do think he is deliberately exploiting the lack of moral clarity among the viewers.

      • 67 Jo
        March 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm

        ok, loved the post and the comments of Sunny! please never stop talking about what you think here because the opinions of others.
        I really hope that the difference between the families to serve some greater purpose in TB, it is very obvious to be coincidence.
        One of the reasons that made me more hate Bill was the way he treated Jessica, who was punished? Bill? for me has always been Jessica, that was bound to have a maker so lax, he abandoned her, not taking responsibility for it, unless when he was forced, and also suppresses all the time, it is a mere nuisance for him if he had brought Jessica to her and explained about it for Sookie, and not guilty to Sookie so as he did because he said he did it not? maybe I’d like a bit of it. This eternal argument they use to defend Bill, that he is an eternal innocent victim of circurstânsias disgusts me.
        as the difference maker of Eric, as much as I liked and I think that Godric was used as a way to “humanize” Eric, although it seems that many have lost the message along the way, as Sookie. For me the fact that the real creator of Eric in the books to be so cruel, remembering Eric’s own account of his maker in the DAG, it makes me see that Eric has a much stronger character, I mean Apio the raped, the enslaved, and as the Eric said he killed many people at first, but still he did not cry about being a “victim of circumstances,” he was strong and fair, the fact that he does not force anybody to have sex with him (as if he needed it!), or does not support this kind of thing, shot it the reports of Pam and Felicia, and the fact that he refused the agreement Halow by sex, the way he acts in sex as SVB said in one of its posts, etc., only reinforces for me the difference between Eric and Bill, I know mixed TB and books, but it is a question that I always wanted to talk, and I have written right, do not speak much English but I hope not spoken anything stupid.

      • 68 Gigi
        March 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm

        [Honestly, and I know I keep harping on this, but the killing of the Chicago couple tells the viewers everything they need to know about Bill.]

        You’re right about it. It should. And WE know that. But the thruth is that while AB will not fully disclose him as the sociopath he is, his behavior always will be blurred behind the fact that he is a vampire and is being portrayed as a victim of circumstances.

        And, I don’t know… Actually I think we can’t neither blame the common viewer of lack of moral clarity because not all people have the depth of knowledge that some of us have to notice and understand these details’ depth, because until now, as I said before, the line is really blur.

        • 69 sunnynala
          March 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm

          his behavior always will be blurred behind the fact that he is a vampire and is being portrayed as a victim of circumstances.

          This is why the compare and contrast between Eric and Bill is so important. When we see Eric behaving much differently than Bill in similar circumstances, it tells the audience that vampires have a choice in how they conduct their lives, that they are sentient beings and not mindless animals. The average viewer doesn’t need any special knowledge to discern this fact, just a willingness to think about what they are seeing and refusing to be spoonfed pre-digested information.

        • 70 Dwimordene
          March 29, 2010 at 7:10 pm

          I would say that people are use to violence too much… People are violent, since they get into kindergarden they learn it by either being abused or being the abusers. And on tv we see all time the protagonist and good guys killing, threatening, kicking, etc. But they are doing that to the bad guy, so it is ok… Violence is ok depending on who are the ones involve. (sorry for James Bond suitors, but he should have been put in jail, lol).
          So those that consider Bill the good guy, as he tells us himself, will find an excuse for his violence (as the people who encorage things such as war, death penalty…): “Eye for eye”. And you don’t need a background in the books or discussions to understand a behaviour… You might not know why or don’t have such depth analysis, but you will certaily know what is wrong (I won’t say about good and evel, because those are very abstract concepts with blurred limits).
          I, as an example, read the books after both seassons, just to know why happened some things that I didn’t understand or like (as the meneade or the queen), I didn’t get an answer for the first but I got half for the second. And yet I never ever liked Bill, I liked how SM acted (never foend him beautiful). I found him violent and untrustworthy. I prefered Eric, who didn’t lied and accepted the consequences of his actions.

        • 71 Gigi
          March 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm

          I think you’re right. People has been spoonfed during three years by the same producer of the show who has been saying over and over again comments like: “The others characters don’t really exist unless they are in the same room with Sookie and Bill”; or “I’ll say this: The love between them is authentic and real”; or “Personally, I’m like, yes, Eric’s hot, but beyond that he’s dangerous, and I don’t know if he’d love anybody besides himself. What’s the appeal there? The bad boy? The danger?”

          Perhaps the day Alan Ball decides to stop making manipulative comments like these, the avarage viewer will stop to feel spoonfed and could be willing to make their own assessments without pre-digest information that manipulates and oversimplifies their judgments into the dichotomy between the good and the bad boy .

          • 72 Ashley
            March 31, 2010 at 4:53 am

            He actually said “The other characters dont really exist unless they are in the same room with Sookie and Bill”? He really said that? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Pretty stupid if you ask me.

            You know what funny about all this though? I liked Sookie and Bill in Season 1. I definitely noticed Eric though and thought he was hot and interesting, but he wasnt in Season 1 much. But in Season 2, my opinion totally changed, WITHOUT having read the books too. Season 2.03 “Scratches” made me think something was going to happen between Sookie/Eric because of their sexual tension, angry at the time or not. So then i went searching on the Internet to find out if they were ever in a relationship in the books, and i discovered they in fact were. And THATS what made me decide to read them. So even the average viewer who hasnt read the books should be able to pick up on the ERic/Sookie chemistry, and the direction of the show. I KNOW from personal experience!! So i think at the end of the day, if AB is spoonfeeding people to like B/S, he’s going to start changing his tune. Nothing he has depicted on the show is an accident. He knows people are going to start pusing for E/S in a big way, except those who have decided its Bill no matter what. But they are many that will probably be swayed, who like both, or who dont care either way. So i say we should stay positive.

            • 73 Angie
              April 2, 2010 at 5:54 am

              Actually, to clarify, AB said that in the books, whenever the other characters aren’t around Sookie, they seem to disappear – since the books are from her POV, and we don’t get a lot of expansion on the supporting characters’ storylines when she’s not with them.

              Sorry, I’ve been without the internet for the last week, so I’m just catching up on everything. 🙂

  6. 77 Sarah StC
    March 29, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    SVB thank you so much for this latest analysis post! I always love reading your insights and the discussions they inspire.

  7. 78 Barbara
    March 30, 2010 at 2:16 am

    I have nothing more to add because everyone has brought out excellent arguments. I did want to say that I have enjoyed reading all the email alerts filled with everyone’s take on this subject. It’s amazing how a simple piece of literature, meant to be entertaining, has so many deeply etched facets for us to analyze and mull over. And I’m grateful for that since we still have 70+ days til June 13th! =) hehehe

  8. 79 VikingLover
    March 30, 2010 at 3:25 am

    By the way, fantastic post SVB!! I loved it!!!

    • 80 PrettyVikingChains
      March 30, 2010 at 3:38 am

      I absolutely agree! You always do a wonderful job picking up on these seemingly small things that will likely have major ramifications in the future, especially when it comes to comparing Eric & Bill. Thanks for once again boosting my faith in the show 😀

  9. 81 Janofarc
    March 30, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    I’m glad I have all you guys to look at this stuff and explain it to me or I’d be toting a gun outside where AB lives right now. It’s hard to spot the subtle signs in the show when you’re spitting blood about the latest scene where Bill is the hero…

  10. 82 VikingLover
    May 30, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    SVB, this snippet from the Blue Ray disc (thanks Serena and Renee!) and it reminded me of this “Meet Your Maker” post you created. I thought you would find this interesting:

    {From the “Keep This Party Going” episode: When Eden brings sandwiches to Sookie and Jessica–Pam says: Why, for the love that is all evil and unholy, would I have wanted to return to my family once I was made vampire? Eric gave me an ultimate gift. I took it and ran as fast as I could away from that dreadful excuse of a life. Daddy was a wealthy business man, and mama raised me to be a proper lady. Lotta good that did. Didn’t take me long to make me realize I was living in an impossibly small world with even smaller men lining up to court me. With Eric my world was split wide open. He likes to snear that my legs were, too. Mama and Daddy would find that talk unpleasant, but uh…they’re dead.}

    A stark difference from Bill and Lorena. It also says a lot about Eric that he chose Pam because he saw something in her – he knew that she would adapt well to vampire life. He wasn’t impulsive and didn’t condemn someone to a “life” he chose for them simply because he may have been lonely or looking for a companion. Pam was grateful for the “gift” and I think Eric chose her because he knew she would be.

    • 83 MASpencer
      May 30, 2010 at 10:41 pm

      I think that this difference– becoming a victim of destiny vs. becoming the captain of your own destiny– is SOOOO important to the themes that this show is presenting. One contingent views their undead life as a punishment, while the other views it as a gift. One is weak, powerless, and resigned to thier “fate,” while the other is entirely self-directed (especially insofar as they were “Grandfathered” by Godric, who carried out the ultimate act of self-determination by killing his oppressive maker).

      These themes are essential elements to the tragic structure of the story. But I think we’ll find that vampires like Pam and Eric have their own flaws… only they’ll be very different from the likes of Bill’s, Lorena’s, and (maybe) Jessica’s.

      • 84 MASpencer
        May 30, 2010 at 11:21 pm

        Although you have to wonder whether Godric’s killing of his maker was really as freeing as he thought it would be. It could be that Godric’s pursuant obsession with battlefields is attributable to the fact that warfare is at times its own brand of slavery.

        Xerxes’ defeat in the Greco-Persian Wars is a good example of this. Though his army far outweighed the Greeks in numbers, his troops (primarily slave comprised, according to Herodotus) did not have the benefit of conviction behind their cause.

        Maybe this is why Godric so revered Eric– because he wasn’t just ANY warrior, but a warrior who was fighting his OWN war. Perhaps it’s Eric’s “selfishness” (and I put that in quotes because that is the superficial way that many people view him) part of what made him so special to Godric– because it is the exact opposite of slavishness, and represents a life contrary to the one from which Godric was trying to escape.

        • 85 MASpencer
          May 30, 2010 at 11:48 pm

          Oh, and to continue with my nerdiness (LOL), this makes Eric comparable to a figure like Achilles– who, in the Iliad, was only driven back into battle (a battle in which he had formerly refused to offer his participation out of anger at being dishonored by Agamemnon) by the death of his “companion” (some say close friend, some say lover) Patroclus. He was so grieved at Patroclus’ death, that he put his dispute with Agamemnon aside and re-engaged to take his personal vengeance against Hector.

          Thus, the Iliad notoriously starts singing of “the rage of Achilles”. To me, this is SO Eric as he is depicted on True Blood. And the parallel is further reinforced by Pam’s statements that Eric was “more than just a man” in his human life, as Achilles was also of partially divine origin.

    • May 30, 2010 at 11:05 pm

      Exactly! I thought the very same thing when I read that the other day. Lorena, Bill and Jessica were all victims. Lorena and Bill have already shown they are incapable of coming to terms with that, and I think Jessica will prove to be the same. Godric, Eric and Pam were victims in a sense too – but they were all able to take control of their own fate, and embrace what they had become.

      I don’t think this is going to be a great season for Eric and Pam – it’s a fair call that there’s trouble brewing with the Magister and I think we’ll see a really interesting contrast with the way these two handle it, as opposed to Bill’s handling of his appearance before the Magister and its consequences in season 1.

      • 87 LLE
        May 30, 2010 at 11:14 pm

        There hope for Jessica. If Jessica hangs out with Pam, Pam could teach her to be a good vampire. Bill is a bad maker and he has not spend any time teaching her to be one.

      • 89 VikingLover
        May 30, 2010 at 11:31 pm

        One thing I see about Jessica though is that she had the potential of having the ability to come to terms with what she had become. She was actually very excited at first and was happy to have been released from the chains of her human life (similar to Pam in a way). It was Bill who kept reminding her that she was a victim and an abomination. This is like the the abused child who is told repeatedly by his/her parents that they are no good. Sooner or later the child begins to believe that about themselves and begins to act out. I wonder what Jessica’s fate would have been had she had a better Maker. Either way, it’s all a viscious cycle that will play out once again with poor Jessica.

        {I don’t think this is going to be a great season for Eric and Pam – it’s a fair call that there’s trouble brewing with the Magister and I think we’ll see a really interesting contrast with the way these two handle it, as opposed to Bill’s handling of his appearance before the Magister and its consequences in season 1.}

        KB/Pam has said that we will see parallels between her relationship with Eric and that of Eric and Godric. I think this will show how loyal Pam is to Eric and how Eric will take full responsibility in order to save Pam (possibly). Another stark difference, I think, between Lorena and Bill. I’m really intrigued to see what happens with the Magister. SVB, I’m really intrigued by your comment about the contrast. Can you elaborate on this?

        I do agree with you, MAS, that Pam and Eric have flaws and that they will be very different from what we have seen of Bill and Lorena. It could be their undoing – hopefully not. I don’t think Eric has been able to survive for 1000 years without having the gift of self examination and improvement. But I could be wrong. I think the point would be to show how they will be able to make it through this whereas Bill may not be able to escape his ultimate fate.

        • 90 sunnynala
          May 30, 2010 at 11:46 pm

          {I don’t think this is going to be a great season for Eric and Pam – it’s a fair call that there’s trouble brewing with the Magister and I think we’ll see a really interesting contrast with the way these two handle it, as opposed to Bill’s handling of his appearance before the Magister and its consequences in season 1.}

          Yep, Eric is in deep and under siege. 😉

          It was Bill who kept reminding her that she was a victim and an abomination. This is like the the abused child who is told repeatedly by his/her parents that they are no good. Sooner or later the child begins to believe that about themselves and begins to act out.

          This is EXACTLY what is happening with Jessica. If she can get out from under Bill she will be fine–and as you say, much like Pam. I DO hope Pam will mentor her this season.

Comments are currently closed.


My ramblings on the Sookie Stackhouse books, and the HBO series True Blood. Everyone I know is already half crazed with my plot and character assassinations, conspiracy theories, theme explorations and general obsessing, so now I'm going to share it all with you. Spoilers and Viking worship are rampant...you have been warned!

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5 other followers

find me


tweet tweet!

Recent Comments

Blog Stats

  • 527,987 hits since October 2009

%d bloggers like this: