Comments on: A Comparison of True Blood vs. Charlaine Harris’ Books

By: sarah

sarah — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:36:40 +0000

what’s interesting, and i wonder what will come of it, is jason has called hoyt “bubba” on several occasions throughout the current season. i wonder if this is in any way going to be how bubba is brought in to the book, even if just as traits from the book character and applied to hoyt’s character?

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 01:25:46 +0000

I like Eric’s book character a lot better and I am really unhappy with the significant amount of changes they have made in season 3 & 4. They left out and changed so much that I am not sure i even want to watch it anymore after reading the books.

By: Rhiannon

Rhiannon — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:38:41 +0000

You’ve also made a mistake with Q3. Lafayette was killed in book 1 so he couldn’t have been in Living Dead in Dallas.
Also Q6, Sookie only found out how Bill betrayed in her Definitely Dead (Book 6) when at the hospital.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:19:00 +0000

Dead To The World is my favorite book as well. I love the relationship between Eric and Sookie.

By: greenmanTN

greenmanTN — Sun, 01 May 2011 08:18:07 +0000

The books are actually mysteries of a very particular sort, really at heart “cozy” mysteries despite all the vampire trappings. Originally there were two main mystery genres, the police-procedural or “hard-boiled” stories and the gentler “cozy” mysteries of which Agatha Christie is the prototype. Cozies are fairly bloodless, no details of autopsies and grody detail, it’s more about the central puzzle. That was the genre Charlaine Harris worked in before and the Sookie Stackhouse novels are true to form. Despite the whole vampire thing Harris mainly glosses over the blood-and-guts aspect of it all and doesn’t dwell much on the details of gore or sex. Those that I’ve read have been positively demure in comparison to other “dark-fantasy” novels and to the profiler and/or CSI-style mysteries or thrillers. The “naughty bits” are there but they’re skimmed over. Harris is not a descriptive writer. Stephen King (just for example) could write 2 pages about the particular pattern of a puddle of blood. Charlaine Harris covers the same ground in a sentence or two. Which you prefer is a matter of taste, I guess.

The interesting thing (to me anyway) is that the True Blood series is considered “sexy” or “gruesome” when the novels aren’t like that at all, yet most of the events and situations in the series are in the books. The “naughty bits” were mentioned or alluded to but really not dwelt upon.

In a away I’d think Harris’ style is ideal for TV or movie adaptation. You got the basics but there are a LOT of details a producer, director, or actor can invent for themselves; they’re not bound by long, descriptive passages. That way the dramatization is still surprising and new even if you’ve read the books.

By: Danni

Danni — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:02:47 +0000

im the same exept i dont rlly like the tv show and i dont rlly think sookie and bill should get back together hes to much of a workaholic plus when they were together they were allways arguing i think it would be best if she got with sam because hes so nice and protective and there rlly close plus she can she him during the day and hes supanatural so she can probs be more relaxed around him with thte whole brain reading thing and for me its ether him or alcide because they also got on well but hes a bit… i donno just a bit something :/

By: Danni

Danni — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:55:55 +0000

The books are so different to the tv show do you agree? also do you actually like the tv show and why when youv read the books?