A guest post by Red Rocker!
A Touch of Dead is Charlaine Harris’ latest book, a collection of short stories featuring the telepathic Louisiana waitress, Sookie Stackhouse. Harris dedicates it to all those readers who want every last sip of Sookie. It’s a double entendre, of course: a lot of people want a sip of Sookie, many real, some fictional. I bought the book in hardcover because, frankly, I was in withdrawal and could not wait until the next installment in the saga came out.
What did I get for my impatience? Five stories, and some interesting black and white interior art by Lisa Desimini, who also does the cover art for the books.
With one exception, the five stories are not central to the ongoing saga. If you don’t read them, you won’t be missing any major revelations. The exception is One Word Answer, which chronologically takes place shortly before Definitely Dead and answers a lot of the questions about the events that lead up to that story. But those questions are answered de facto in Definitely Dead anyways.
So what will you miss if you don’t read these stories?
They are all mystery stories; two of them are murder mysteries. Fairy Dust is a classic locked room whodunit: the murder takes place in a night club, there are only three possible suspects, and the murder could only have occurred within a fixed time frame. The answer to whodunit depends on the fact that there are only a limited number of ways of murdering a fairy.
The other murder mystery is One Word Answer. This one is more in the style of The Usual Suspects: what you think is happening is not what’s actually happening; what’s actually happening is a game of wits between two clever women, one of whom happens to be the Queen of Louisiana. It also has one of the best opening lines to a story I’ve read in a long time:
- Bubba the Vampire and I were raking up clippings from my newly trimmed bushes about midnight when the long black car pulled up.
And of course it also manages to give a hilarious answer to the eternal question: where’s Waldo?
Lucky presents a dilemma which is familiar to Harry Potter readers: how exactly does magic alter luck? With Rowling, magic intensifies the luck within an individual, at least for a brief period of time. Harris writes about luck as a limited commodity: if one person uses magic to take more than their share of luck, there isn’t enough left over for others. Lucky has a darker side: a sub-plot is based on the after effects of Hurricane Katrina on the vampire population of New Orleans. The revelation that the Red Cross would make provision for vampires left homeless and destitute by the storm is logical, in a bizarre sort of way. The fact that vampires are as vulnerable to natural disasters as “breathers” is a more jarring discovery.
Then there’s the Christmas tale, Gift Wrap. Alone at Christmas, Sookie encounters a werewolf desperately in need of help. She helps him, of course, with backup from the Benelli, the same shotgun that saved the day in Dead to the World, and which broke the witch’s spell over Eric in From Dead to Worse. And once the bad guys are dispatched, Sookie and her werewolf celebrate. The story has an O Henry ending, and it’s easy to read it at that level. But it goes to a level beyond that; this story is self-aware. It recognizes the familiar elements which figure in most of the books in the saga, and assembles them with great economy to give Sookie a personalized Christmas present.
The final story is Dracula Night, which also brings together familiar stories. In one corner we have Vlad the Impaler, in spangly black jumpsuit. In the other corner we have his unexpected fanboy, Eric Northman. In the background you can almost hear the soundtrack from It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown. And invited to the party as Linus’ companion at the pumpkin patch vigil, but inevitably taking on the role of the pragmatic Lucy van Pelt, is Sookie. It’s very, very funny, and very sweet and worth the price of admission.
Enjoy.
Joivre on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Tom on 
Loading ...
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
Red Rocker, if you were to plan the menu for this meal of Sookie, would this be the cheese course, to be consumed entirely after the series? If not, how would you place the stories among the series in order?
Thanks again for the tip-off. I’m trying to slow down my reading so as to savor every morsel, as after the first book I was very hungry for more. I’m enjoying it thoroughly.
Bon appetit!
Joivre
In her intro to the book, Harris explains:
FairyDust happens after the events in Dead to the World
Dracula Night happens before Dead as a Door Nail
One Word Answer happens after Dead as a Door Nail
Lucky happens after All Together Dead
Gift Wrap happens before Dead and Gone
They’re all pretty much stand alone so you can read them whenever. But if you’re asking my personal opinion, it might save you some confusion if you read One Word Answer before reading Definitely Dead. I know that I was certain that I’d missed an intervening book and had to check the lists several times before realizing, no this was it. Also, I’d save Dracula Night until near the end of the series: it’s enjoyable any time, but it helps to understand Eric before you can really appreciate the last line of the story.
In fact – and it’s hard to have this conversation before you read all the books – I think Harris is going somewhere with the character, and I think that this story is one of the pointers to his ultimate fate.
Have you read any of the other short stories and how would you place those. Below is the chronological list from Wikipedia. Right now I’m in the closing in on the end of Dead to the World and am wondering if I should hold off until UPS delivers my Touch of Dead before I start Dead as a Doornail.
1. Dead Until Dark (May 2001) [2]
2. Living Dead in Dallas (March 2002) [3]
3. Club Dead (May 2003) [4]
4. Dead to the World (May 2004) [5]
“Fairy Dust” in Powers of Detection (October 2004) [6]
“Dancers in the Dark” a novella in Night’s Edge (October 2004) [7]
(a Sookie-universe story without the character of Sookie Stackhouse)
“Dracula Night” in Many Bloody Returns (September 2007) [8]
5. Dead as a Doornail (May 2005) [9]
“One Word Answer” in Bite (2005),[10]
6. Definitely Dead (May 2006) [11]
“Tacky” in My Big, Fat Supernatural Wedding (2006) [12]
(a Sookie-universe story without the character of Sookie Stackhouse)
7. All Together Dead (May 2007) [13]
“Lucky” in Unusual Suspects (December 2008) [14]
8. From Dead to Worse (May 2008) [15]
“Gift Wrap” in Wolfsbane and Mistletoe (October 2008) [16]
9. Dead and Gone (May 2009) [17]
“Bacon” in Strange Brew (July 2009) [17]
(a Sookie-universe story without the character of Sookie Stackhouse)
“The Britlingens Go To Hell” in Must Love Hellhounds (September 2009) [17]
(a Sookie-universe story without the character of Sookie Stackhouse)
10. A Touch of Dead (October 2009) [17]
(a compilation of some of the Sookie-universe short stories: “Fairy Dust,” “One Word Answer,” “Dracula Night,” “Lucky,” and “Giftwrap.”)
11. Dead in the Family (May 2010) [17]
I think that I’ll probably try a few of Harris’ non-Sookie stories eventually – the one about the Britlingens is tempting – but so far I haven’t read any.
What a coincidence! I’ve just read one of the Britlingen stories(is there more than one?) in a collection of short stories entitled Must Like Hellhounds. Harris’ “The Britlingens’ Go To Hell,” is the first one. Although I pretty much prefer the Sookie books(although her Shakespeare/Lily Bard series isn’t bad), it’s apparent that Harris is adept at creating individual worlds for her characters. After the bloodbath at the end of the last Sookie book, though, I’m taking a break from them for awhile.
About that bloodbath. I read at a Sookie site that Harris has said she’s closing the fairy sub-plot, which is one of the reason why there was such wholesale slaughter. I can’t wait for Dead in the Family to come out, but I agree that the violence at the end of Dead and Gone was – grim. No joy to it, certainly, unlike earlier battles where there was some sense of triumph over adversity. Now the survivors are too tired and sore to be even grateful that they’re still alive – barely.
Red Rocker,
The enthusiasm in your posts about Sookie Stackhouse make me want to pull out my books and reread them.
I started a blog to explore Sookie’s world on a deeper level. So far, I’ve been concentrating primarily on the show, but I’ll get to the novels, too.
blog.ancientpythoness.com
Renee
Went to your blog. Nice analysis of the parallels between Jason and Eric. It is an interesting parallel – and quite deliberate, according to what you say. But I believe it’s more Alan Ball than Charlaine Harris. I came upon this quote from Ball: “the characters are all my babies and I love writing for all of them. Especially Jason”. I have yet to watch the show, and it’s quotes like that which make me hesitant. Not sure that I’ll be able to keep two versions of Sookie running at the same time in my mind.
I’d be interested in reading your analysis of some of the stuff going on in the novels when you do get to that.
You’re right. What I’m seeing is primarily in the show. I really think Ball is writing on a more literary manner than Charlaine. Last season when Ball deviated from the novels in both the vampire and maenad story lines, he brought in the four levels of meanings that John Granger talks about in his blog. The mythology that he added was incredibly complex with allusions to not only “The Bacchae” but also to Aristophanes’s “The Birds.”
I have strong feelings about those who take someone else’s work and deliver their own meanings with it. Adapted screenplays are vulnerable to this, no doubt. And I myself have written that the movie of a book doesn’t have to be faithful to the book to be effective. But an adaptation, no matter how clever, erudite, inaightful, or even moving, remains derivative work. Ball was the primary writer for Six Feet Under, and probably conceived the idea as well. True Blood on the other hand, is at best an adopted baby. At worst, it is paid fanfiction.
While I’m kind of surprised to see the word derivative used derisively on a Potter blog, I understand your objections. However, I really think you are underestimating what is going on.
One of the major themes is how different points of view change the meaning of a narrative, so in order to make the point that he is focused on, Ball needed a body of work that was not itself original. He is retelling Harris’s retelling of the vampire myth, which is a collaborative creation to begin with.
The whole show is a giant game of telephone. The game continues inside the show with all of the characters, none of whom can report even eye witness accounts accurately. Even readers and viewers are participants in the game since they come to different conclusions about what is going on based on their interpretation of either Harris’s or Ball’s work.
Another thing that I find particularly interesting is that Ball seems to be identifying some alchemical elements in Harris’s work and plans to develop them further.
blog.ancientpythoness.com/?p=239
Red – I found this weird. Human or Vampire – am I missing something?
http://perezhilton.com/2009-12-04-holy-gay-vampire-true-blood#respond
My wife bought me the first Sookie book in ebook format. That means I might actually read it sometime…sometime.
News just in:
HBO is running a marathon of the first four episodes of season 1 of the TV show True Blood on Monday December 28th at 8/7 c Here’s the link:
http://www.hbo.com/trueblood/
Buyer beware: I have not seen these episodes, and I did not enjoy the brief piece of a later episode of the series which I did see. It didn’t seem to resemble the books much. But you may judge for yourself if so inclined.
Thanks to Arabella Figg for the heads up.
But Anna Paquin plays Sookie, right? Growl!
I have HBO through January so I might DVR them.
Anyway, up to chapter six or so of Dead Until Dark.
Yes – it’s Anna Paquin. She is so pretty. (just don’t growl too loudly in front of the wifey
) It was strange for me seeing her all grown up since the last time I saw her was in The Piano. I hope she’s a good Sookie. If you DVR them and watch the episodes – please report back. I’m very interested in Sookie. I want her to have that inner strength that one gets the sense of in of the books. I don’t see her as too girly – if you know what I mean.
I think X-Men was the last movie I saw Paquin in.
Anyway, my first task will be to actually remember to DVR them.
I could be totally wrong here, but based on the limited samples of True Blood that I’ve seen, I don’t think Alan Ball is too much into the inner strength of female characters.
I do feel very PVUBON writing the above, and actually hope that I am mistaken – although I don’t believe it for a second. One of the circles of hell must be reserved for people like me, especially a hell constructed by Hollywood writers.
PVUBON? what does that stand for? All these acronyms – I feel so out of it. You know I had to look up XD? Do you know how old I felt? I used to think LOL meant lots of love. I emailed a friend once and said “I’m so happy that you are my friend. LOL.” It was embarassing.
I know what you mean though about Hollywood, Red Rocker. That’s why I never went full out into a film career. It’s really hard for women. You need the skin of a rhino. But there are some women making strides. Like our own Janet here!
Let’s cross our fingers for Sookie.
I never would have picked up on the alchemy in the novels if it hadn’t been developed in the show.
PVUBON is a take-off from PRUBON: Presumptive Reader Unworthiness Based on Non-reading which we’ve been discussing on the Forum.
What I’m saying is that although I acknowledge that I’m not qualified to venture an opinion on the TV series, I continue to do so, hence deserving the special fate reserved for those who know they’re PVUBON but won’t shut up.
Don’t know about the TV Sookie, but Charlaine Harris’ Sookie is in good hands.
See what I mean?
Joivre, don’t feel bad; I had to look up XD, too.
I like PVUBON!
Well, I was happily ignoring it until Joivre looked it up, and suddenly I realized that we were expected to know about it. So I too, somewhat reluctantly, looked it up:
xD” or “XD”, an emoticon commonly used on the internet to express happiness, self-deprecation, laughter, bewilderment, or sarcasm says Wikipedia.
We’re often prompted on these pages to use emoticons to clarify our intent. I am personally very bad at attempting to convey sarcasm. So perhaps I will try saying XD((5) the next time I’m trying to be sarcastic.
XD.
Well – FWIW IMHO, MHOTY Red Rocker. XD((50) – ROTFLMAO. This is so OT but RBTL – L8TR. Got 2 go – PIR!
XD((5)
ugh. I just can’t do it anymore. Let’s please stop -it’s worse than Klingon. BTW PRUBON sounds nasty.
http://www.netlingo.com/top50/popular-text-terms.php
Joivre,
I read your message with interest, resorting frequently to the text-to-English translation site. But unless PIR has some strong significance, I’m not sure all those acronyms actually said anything.
At the risk of passing judgement on a culture without actually having spent much time learning its customs and language, I think that text messaging lacks the ability to convey referents, i.e. the object or idea to which a word or phrase refers.
ES
As you parent Red – you should probably get to know PIR -
http://www.netlingo.com/top50/acronyms-for-parents.php
But ES? Unless you belong to a Finnish Singles Community – you’ve stumped me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES
On the allegorical level, I’ve been thinking about how Eric’s love for Sookie is very Christlike. Charlaine identifies him as the Prince of Peace (as a sheriff he is the keeper of the peace) and High Priest, but I really like how AB developed the allegory by making Eric the son of God(ric) and linking Sookie to him through the blood of his child, Eric.
Through texting and Twitter, with their character limits and shortcut acronyms, we have more frequent and quicker access to each other, but are saying less. We share banal moments, but not the fullness of our lives, IMHO.
Acronymic irony, of course. But I usually avoid such acronyms.
And so I shall write in full:
By the way, Red Rocker, your sarcasm comes through pretty clearly to me. But, is there an emoticon for sarcasm??
And thanks, Joivre, for the links.
Thanks, Joivre, I’ve added both links to my favorites.
You’re absolutely right: I need to know PIR, and as well PAL, PAW and POS.
ES means Elitist Snob, which is what I probably am on a number of counts.
Arabella: I was using XD as an emoticon for sarcasm. But check out the rolling eyes on the Forum.
Renee, Eric’s love for Sookie is totally selfish and carnal (although as carnal love goes, it’s one of the best). Unless Alan Ball has changed this, I don’t see how it can be said to be Christlike. And of course in the novels Eric is not the vampire child of Godric (who was, if I recall correctly, not a very nice person, even for a vampire and thus not extremely God-like). I believe that we’re about to meet the vampire who “made” Eric in the next book.
I think that the TV series must be very different than the books. It would be interesting to know what the similarities are. You know both the series and the books: are there points where you see that Ball’s vision is the same as Harris’?
Red Rocker said, “I think that the TV series must be very different than the books.”
Hmm, maybe I won’t DVR those episodes next Monday. Having not even finished the first book yet, although I’m close to done, I don’t think I want to start mixing the book & the TV show together in my mind.
Red Rocker,
It seems that we are bound to disagree on just about everything, but it seems pretty clear to me that the series is a Christian allegory. With Bill being sent to Bon Temps (Good Times=Paradise) on a secret mission to seduce a virgin, you have the fall and all that results from it. Bill is always associated with lies and deception, but Eric is transparent, everything is on the surface. On the show he can’t tell a lie to save his own neck.
Eric’s love is carnal, but on the allegorical level it is constant, unwavering, patient, and sacrificial. Eric doesn’t pursue Sookie. She must come to him of her own free will. He only turns up when she is at the lowest points in her life or grave danger. He even rescues her from her tomb when when he pulls her out of the arms of Bill (Death) when Sookie and Bill are trapped in the trunk of the car and he nearly drains her.
Reverend George,
Season 1 is very close to Dead Until Dark, and there are only two instance that I can think of that are different from the novel. The major big one is that Tara is African American, and she and Sookie have a much closer relationship.
Alan Ball has done a wonderful job fleshing out all the characters and developing their stories since we just get Sookie’s in the novel.
The only caution that I give for the show is due to its MA rating.
Renee – hmmmm…. – I’m just not seeing Eric that way. I like him as the powerful, six-foot-five, lusty, bon-vivant, sheriff vampire sex-god he is. The more carnal than Christ-like – the better. And Bon Temps is no paradise.
But that’s just my opinion – and I have not seen the series. PV…
Oh and Red Rocker – that’s not fair! I’m not going to be able to read your posts when I’m seeing a sexy naked Sean Bean sharing the screen. I can barely read my own with Viggo there –
My gravatars are always G rated. Mr. Bean might be absent his shirt, but let me assure you that he is wearing trousers.
Huh? What did you say? Can… not…. read…
Joive–Eric is all that you describe, but do you disagree with the points I made? I am not trying to be difficult, I am just trying to look at this in relation to John Granger’s 4 levels of meaning and trying to figure where I am going wrong.
If Stephanie Meyer is writing on these levels, why not Harris? The series is full of allusions to Harry Potter.
When I look at the things that in the novels that just seem a little off or weird and focus on the allegorical level, everything seems to fall into place. Isn’t it weird that such a carnal alpha male waits so patiently for Sookie to come to him even though he is desperate for her? Even in idealized romances, Eric’s devotion to Sookie seems extreme to the point of absurd for what he’s getting in return from her. She devastated him with that affair with Quinn, yet he never says a word? He never gets angry with her for any reason? What kind of alpha is this? It only makes sense to me on the allegorical level. Isn’t it creepy that Bill still stalks Sookie? Couldn’t Harris show his continuing devotion in a more culturally acceptable way? If Bill represents death, as Long Shadow said all vampires do, then he is stalking Sookie because death is always waiting in the shadows ready to claim the next victim.
Renee – You are not being difficult at all in asking these questions. And the points you made are good ones! And asking these questions is the basis of analysis. And I love nothing more than to get into that. But I have never read John Granger’s books so I am woefully inept in commenting on his four levels of meaning and I also can’t understand why educated grown men are interested in Twilight so I’m probably going to have to check his book out of a Library one day. I visited your site and I really can’t wait to see Trueblood. I love the books so much – I want the series (even if it’s a little bit like the books) to be good.
The great advantage you have right now in your analysis – is that the author is living. And from all accounts – she is a really cool person who actually answers mail. You should send her a hollar. Ask her if Bill is Death. Ask her if Eric is Christ. Don’t ignore the best resource in the world. And what a great opportunity for you – you could interview her – write a book about the series. Go to the source girl.
I don’t think you are going wrong. But I think you should analyze these books on your terms. Not John Grangers. Yes, he is making a living off analyzing the Twilight books – but it’s his way. You’ve got great insight having read the books and seen the series. Blog about it in your own voice. Seek out your own meaning. All the metaphors, allegories, allusions and representations should be yours. Personally. And be prepared – it might not be all about Christianity. What would you say if I told you Charlaine Harris was Jewish? Would it change your analysis? You write beautifully and you are perceptive. I am waiting for your voice. Keep up your website. I will check it!
Renee, I can not speak to the four levels of meaning. I also can not speak to alchemical interpretations. I can get allegories if they’re pretty straightforward, for example like Aslan = Christ.
But this is how I interpret Eric’s relationship with Sookie. And revgeorge you need to stop reading here because I’m about to give out major spoilers.
He likes her and he lusts after her because she’s sexy and smart and brave. He doesn’t get angry with her because he admires her. Whatever she does is cool with him. But I wouldn’t say that he doesn’t go after her. He’s all over her every chance he gets. And he takes every opportunity he can to exhange blood with her so that she will become bonded to him. This is where I started seeing him as manipulative. He saves her life, sure., but each time she’s closer and closer to him. It only stops in Dead and Gone because they reach that mysterious point of no return.
Don’t get me wrong – I like Eric. I really enjoy his character. But I see him constantly pushing Sookie towards a closeness and commitment that she doesn’t want. And because there is no commitment, I don’t see her thing with Quinn as really being any of his business. Yes, they’re together at the end of the last book, but Sookie is still divided in her mind because she doesn’t know how much of what she feels is due to the blood bond.
As for Bill, he is certainly no match for Eric when it comes to charisma, but you have to admit that he does constantly seem to be saving her life. Without any return. How long has it been since they’ve slept together? And the way he watches her from afar doesn’t seem stalking to me; rather it seems like he’s being protective. So I see him as the spurned but faithful lover.
I’m not saying that there aren’t deeper meanings to the books. But I do believe that a lot of the dancing around with different lovers is due to the need to keep the story fresh. And as for the deeper meaning, I think it lies in the direction of freedom of choice, and the determination not to be controlled or defined by one’s relationship to a man – no matter how studly. In fact, I think Sookie and Carmen are sisters under the skin. Fortunately, we already know that their ends will be different.
Renee – here’s a way to contact Ms. Harris. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and simply ask her a question! How cool is that!
http://www.charlaineharris.com/faqs.html
And she’s not Jewish – just threw that in there for the mix.
I see Red posted the same time as me. And he’s the Sookie expert on this site.
Red Rocker, I already used wikipedia to look ahead in the books, so I’m already spoiled.
I finished Dead Until Dark on Monday night. Brief thoughts: Well, it’s much, much better than a particular other vampire book that seems popular…
Real characters, real plot, more fully realized characters & motivations, better written, more imaginative, more captivating. Am I leaving anything out? 
I don’t know if I’ll go on to read any more of the books in the Sookie series but I feel like I would enjoy doing so & I have a little bit of an inclination to do so, if I didn’t think it sounded like it got too soap-operaish. As opposed to that other series, where I felt absolutely no desire whatsoever to read the remaining books.
revgeorge the soap-operaish flavour is imparted not so much by Harris herself, as by her fans. It centers around Sookie’s men. She goes through several relationships (and a couple of near misses). A lot of fans have their favorites and talk endlessly about the relative merits of Bill, Eric and Quinn, making it all seem like a soap opera. Sookie herself is more ruthless – if she finds a boyfriend lacking, she moves on. One interesting thing for me is that Sookie would not tolerate a fraction of the guff a certain unnamed heroine of a certain unnamed vampire series puts up with from her unnamed but gorgeous vampire boyfriend.
Beyond the boyfriends, the saga of the supes is really engrossing, especially the natural history, organizational heirarchy and the power politics. I am also intrigued by Sookie’s movement from innocence towards knowledge and experience.
In the end of course, you need to please only yourself. All I can say is that the series have given me a lot of reading pleasure.
Soap opera like? Hmmm… Red and Revgeorge, I am not getting that at all from this series. But then I’m not going on sites about this series so I don’t know other’s reactions. I think each of Sookie’s relationships are grown-up-relationships with men (even if it is her first relationships) and each serves their own purpose in Sookie’s life. I don’t see Soap Opera here at all. No music in the background, no overblown emotions, no stupid dialogue. There are good reasons these men are in her life. And there are good reasons she discards them. I don’t think I would use the word ruthless though. I don’t see Sookie as ruthless. Just my opinion.
Revgeorge – I think the books get better.
Joivre, you’re right about the background music, overblown emotions and stupid dialogue. No resemblance there. Nor does anyone talk on and on about relationships – which used to be the favorite pastime of soaps, from what I recall.
But there is no doubting that relationships are pretty important in the stories. They are not the main focus – which is a mixture of fantasy-horror-sci-fi adventure – but they are a major focus.
Joivre, you say in #38: “But I have never read John Granger’s books so I am woefully inept in commenting on his four levels of meaning.” You then state: ” But I think you should analyze these books on your terms. Not John Grangers. Yes, he is making a living off analyzing the Twilight books – but it’s his way.”
John is hardly making a living off of his books. He’s not using literary tools he’s created. And everyone who loves Harry Potter owes a great deal to John, who opened up the books (and other Great Books) to us in a way no one else did. He was ridiculed for years for his accurate and insightful contributions to understanding Harry Potter, now accepted as basic. Yet his humility still shines.
Those of us who have participated at HogPro since its inception and read his books know that if John Granger says there must be “something more” to a book, then there is something more to be found. This is why “an educated grown man” is interested in Twilight. Even a regular here, always ready to find (or create
) opportunity to bash Twlight has bought Spotlight; you don’t have to like a book or series to find appreciation for an author’s artistry. Your dismissive comment is unkind.
I hope you will read John’s books; you’ll find it an illuminating adventure. He has always been ahead of his time.
Renee, good for you in your search of the Sookie Stackhouse series to see if “there is something more.” While I only read the first one, I would be doing the same kind of thing. I recently read the book The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, and thanks to John’s tutelage, discovered that it was alchemical (with a Romeo/Juliet angle). I’ve just gotten the second book and am quite eager to see what I find there. I applaud your efforts in using the literary analysis tools John has given us to look at Harris’ books with an eagle eye. And Harris has a Christian background. In her Aurora Teagarden books, faith and church are plot points.
Arabella – Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify my position.
My comment was never intended as dismissive to Mr. Granger and I don’t believe it was. I stated I did not know his books – I stated that I would probably read his book to understand Twilight. And I assume that Mr. Granger is not writing these books for free and as an educated person, he knows something about this series that I do not. Renee’s comments reminded me of the posts of Mr. Granger’s previous analysis of Twilight on this site and I recognized it as such even before Renee mentioned Mr. Granger. I still think that critcal analysis can take on many styles of literary criticism and I appreciate Mr. Granger’s style, from what I’ve read. I have not disparaged his contrubutions to the Harry Potter phenom. My intentions were not unkind, my comment was my opinion, and I still stand by the content.
Joivre
You’d be amazed by the number of males interested in Twilight. I am a middle school teacher and the number of boys and the different “types” of boys I see with the novels has really been an eye opener.
I should not have said, “John Granger’s four levels of meaning,” implying that it is his system. I just think of it that way because I leaned of it from him. It actually refers to the four levels of meaning that Dante and many other authors develop in their work. The first level is the literal story. The second is the moral message. The third is the allegorical meaing. (I know Harris writing on this level because Bill and Sookie’s romance is the story of Cupid and Psyche) The fourth level is the anagogical where Harris uses the monomyth and alchemy.
Arabella Figg
Thanks for the tip off to alchemy in ‘The Hunger Games.’ It’s sitting in my car waiting for some free time to get read. Now I’ll know what to watch for the first time through.
I’ve been exploring the alchemy in the Sookie books. A friend who didn’t quite believe me posed the question of alchemy to Charlaine Harris on her website. Her assistant answered that Harris didn’t use it like Rowling did (Who does?) and had never really put that name to it, but she said it could be described that way because Harris was employing the same transformative process for Sookie that Rowling put Harry through.
I can see the transformative process. But so far she seems to be going deeper and deeper into her long, dark teatime of the soul, or nigredo, or existential despiar or what have you. In fact, it looks to me like she’s reached a nadir at the end of the last book – with the possible exception of the presence of Hunter who promises hope for the future.
But think about HP, he just became a bigger and bigger mess with each book. After Harry lost Serius, I didn’t think it could get any worse, but it did right up to the end of the rubedo.
I wrote about the first alchemical cycle Sookie goes through in Dead Until Dark. The very last sentence reveals who I think Sookie will end up with at the end of the series, but the rest of the post focuses on the first novel.
http://blog.ancientpythoness.com/?p=356