This article by Jamelle Bouie makes me realize how little I actually understand poverty. I did know that most people who need food stamps only need them for a short length of time, but it surprises me that only about 3.5% of the population counted as impoverished for the entirety of 2009-2011. That seems hopeful, doesn't it?
Also, I've seen a couple places that if this crazy 6 Californias plan could actually come to fruition, I would suddenly find myself a resident of the poorest state in the country. This...makes me rethink a lot of what I think I know about Mississippi. But I think there's also some important questions that need to be answered before I understand what that statistic really means. Would the median household in "Central California" be poorer than the median household in Mississippi...or are there just a more significant number of very rich people in Mississippi that pull up the mean? Are poor Central Californians better off overall, despite low incomes, because of a more expansive (better?) safety net financed by the richer parts of the state/a more liberal political culture? Even though this area is obviously not rich, I definitely don't go through life viewing my neighbors as some of the most unfortunate people in the country...so either the country is much better off than I thought it was, or there's something extra at play here.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
Advanced Baby Names, ctd.
I've been thinking about what I mean by "advanced baby naming." What I most definitely do not mean is finding better baby names than the stupid names the plebeians are giving to their children (and to repeat, this is a sentence about what I don't mean, so I DO NOT THINK that the plebeians are giving their children stupid names)...although it can be hard not to stick your foot in your mouth, because there is such a fascinating socioeconomic element to baby names but its impossible to get into specifics without insulting someone. If someone could help me find a perfectly positive way to say "Your choice is so atypical of college educated parents! Please tell me more about your background because I'm intrigued!" I would really really appreciate it. I think what I do mean is a conversation about baby names in which the ultimate goal is not to pick a name for a specific real or even hypothetical baby. It could be a conversation about people names, even...but specifically about the process of parents choosing what to name their children.
So take, for example, unisex names. Parents who pick a name for their child - and for now I'm thinking mostly about daughters - that could be used for the opposite sex often are going for a certain effect. They might be envisioning/assuming/hoping that their child will be a bit of a tomboy. They might like that it seems daring. They might think a masculine name will make people take their child more seriously. Or they might be going for contrast. Being named something like Alex can underscore a person's natural femininity.
I found a peer reviewed article at one point (trying to find it to provide a link) that found that in the 1980s, college educated mothers were especially likely to masculinize their daughter's name...pick Lauren over Laura, for example. This seems to track with 1980s feminism pretty well to me. My question is whether that trend for unisex names is like shoulder pads...something that is eventually going to go out of style...or fairly constant in their appeal.
The first way to look at this is just look for popular unisex names across generations.*
So take, for example, unisex names. Parents who pick a name for their child - and for now I'm thinking mostly about daughters - that could be used for the opposite sex often are going for a certain effect. They might be envisioning/assuming/hoping that their child will be a bit of a tomboy. They might like that it seems daring. They might think a masculine name will make people take their child more seriously. Or they might be going for contrast. Being named something like Alex can underscore a person's natural femininity.
I found a peer reviewed article at one point (trying to find it to provide a link) that found that in the 1980s, college educated mothers were especially likely to masculinize their daughter's name...pick Lauren over Laura, for example. This seems to track with 1980s feminism pretty well to me. My question is whether that trend for unisex names is like shoulder pads...something that is eventually going to go out of style...or fairly constant in their appeal.
The first way to look at this is just look for popular unisex names across generations.*
- 2013: Five definitely unisex names in the top 20 (Addison, Madison, Avery, Harper and Aubrey), and one that might have counted as unisex historically (Evelyn)
- 1983: Three: Erin, Kimberly, and Ashley
- 1953: The only even kind of unisex name I can find in the top 20 is Carol...but Carol was a reasonably common name for men in the generation before, so I'm counting it.
- 1933: Five...Shirley, Jean, Joyce, Frances, Carol
- 1903: Only Frances
So unisex is definitely having a moment right now and is a more significant trend than it has been since my grandmother's generation. But what I'd really like to do is go out and interview parents from each of these generations and figure out WHY they liked the names that they liked. Did they imagine the Carols growing up to be assertive and confident? Was Jean supposed to be good at sports? Or was Jean supposed to look like this. While being good at sports?
*My process for picking out unisex names is to first pick the names I think have been used for boys at some point in the recent past, and then to verify using the SSA database. I did not verify that names like Elizabeth are not unisex, so I could have conceivably made some errors there. Also I didn't consider that parents wanting a boyish name for their daughter might name her Patricia and call her Pat...which is definitely an oversight, but I don't know what to do about it. But I did count names that had a feminine spelling but identical pronunciation to a male name (Erin, Jean).
Friday, July 25, 2014
Advanced Baby Name Discussion
Alright, so last time around I claimed I was ready for advanced baby name discussion. So here's an attempt:
I've been thinking recently about the concept of a "cool" name. People have all kinds of motivations for picking a particular name for their baby, but coolness is definitely one of them. But then, coolness is also generally considered to be generational...parents are inherently uncool. So how can a name picked by parents to be cool be cool?
One theory is something that I think we already kind of know....coolness really isn't that generational. Kids who are cool usually have parents who were cool (and kids who aren't cool usually have parents who weren't cool) so the cool names of any generation are going to be whatever names the cool people of the previous generation like. They teach their kids what to like, and so its a self fulfilling prophesy.
Another theory is related, but not necessarily exactly the same...there is no such thing as a cool name. Cool kids make their names cool. You can give your kid the exact same name as the most badass badass in school, and on that kid it will seem cool and on your kid it won't.
And then the last theory is that the actual cool names are normal names. Trying for coolness is doomed.
In practice, thinking this all through requires remembering what names I thought were cool when I was in elementary - high school. I'm pretty sure in elementary school, the coolest name that anyone I actually knew had was Melissa. I have no idea why I liked it. I was a dork and wanted to turn it into a name that was more unique and special, so I discovered Millicent, and that was my "favorite" name for a while...but really I liked Melissa. And then by high school, I'm pretty sure it was Joanna (plus some of the completely un-Americanized names my classmates had, but I think those have to go in a different category because liking them didn't make them part of the menu of options I had for naming my own kids, at least by my interpretation of what the "rules" are). So I guess that's overall a vote for normal-for-their-generation names. Melissa I think also hints at a preference for newer names...none of my classmates' moms were named Melissa. Joanna (the 88th most popular name in my birth year vs. number 8 for Melissa) I think shows a growing appreciation for timelessness and not being too popular. Both are three syllable, melodic names...of exactly the type I didn't have or give my daughters. Neither one is cool specifically because of the person/people I knew who had it.
I'm not going to list the uncool names, because that's just mean...but they definitely tended to be attached to just one person, and just one person I didn't think was especially cool. I can think of plenty of instances of a unusual name seeming normal because the person with it was so normal or was someone I was close to, but none where I thought someone was a complete dork but had an awesome name. I can actually kind of remember some cognitive dissonance in this area. There were names I wanted to like because they were unique or old fashioned, but I just kind of didn't. (And again, not talking about anyone I was ever close to here...this only seems to work for people who the main thing you know about them is their name).
But obviously, I wasn't really the arbitrar of cool growing up, so my sample size of one is pretty useless.
Oh, and ironically...the coolest name I ever liked as a kid by my current standards would have been the one I picked when I was about three and decided to name all my dolls Alice after my great-aunt.
I've been thinking recently about the concept of a "cool" name. People have all kinds of motivations for picking a particular name for their baby, but coolness is definitely one of them. But then, coolness is also generally considered to be generational...parents are inherently uncool. So how can a name picked by parents to be cool be cool?
One theory is something that I think we already kind of know....coolness really isn't that generational. Kids who are cool usually have parents who were cool (and kids who aren't cool usually have parents who weren't cool) so the cool names of any generation are going to be whatever names the cool people of the previous generation like. They teach their kids what to like, and so its a self fulfilling prophesy.
Another theory is related, but not necessarily exactly the same...there is no such thing as a cool name. Cool kids make their names cool. You can give your kid the exact same name as the most badass badass in school, and on that kid it will seem cool and on your kid it won't.
And then the last theory is that the actual cool names are normal names. Trying for coolness is doomed.
In practice, thinking this all through requires remembering what names I thought were cool when I was in elementary - high school. I'm pretty sure in elementary school, the coolest name that anyone I actually knew had was Melissa. I have no idea why I liked it. I was a dork and wanted to turn it into a name that was more unique and special, so I discovered Millicent, and that was my "favorite" name for a while...but really I liked Melissa. And then by high school, I'm pretty sure it was Joanna (plus some of the completely un-Americanized names my classmates had, but I think those have to go in a different category because liking them didn't make them part of the menu of options I had for naming my own kids, at least by my interpretation of what the "rules" are). So I guess that's overall a vote for normal-for-their-generation names. Melissa I think also hints at a preference for newer names...none of my classmates' moms were named Melissa. Joanna (the 88th most popular name in my birth year vs. number 8 for Melissa) I think shows a growing appreciation for timelessness and not being too popular. Both are three syllable, melodic names...of exactly the type I didn't have or give my daughters. Neither one is cool specifically because of the person/people I knew who had it.
I'm not going to list the uncool names, because that's just mean...but they definitely tended to be attached to just one person, and just one person I didn't think was especially cool. I can think of plenty of instances of a unusual name seeming normal because the person with it was so normal or was someone I was close to, but none where I thought someone was a complete dork but had an awesome name. I can actually kind of remember some cognitive dissonance in this area. There were names I wanted to like because they were unique or old fashioned, but I just kind of didn't. (And again, not talking about anyone I was ever close to here...this only seems to work for people who the main thing you know about them is their name).
But obviously, I wasn't really the arbitrar of cool growing up, so my sample size of one is pretty useless.
Oh, and ironically...the coolest name I ever liked as a kid by my current standards would have been the one I picked when I was about three and decided to name all my dolls Alice after my great-aunt.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Finding stuff you like.
I've been feeling a bit like I've hit the end of the internet lately, so on a whim I started reading the actual blog of a woman whose baby name blog I check. (There's a lot of admissions in that statement, primarily that I read baby name blogs. I find them pretty interesting but I think I've graduated to advanced baby name discussion and there actually isn't a place on the internet for that, that I've found. Maybe I'll try to start it here, all by my lonesome, talking to myself). It's turning out to be the kind of thing that I want to email links from to Ryan to give him insight into my inner being. I like the writer's openness. She writes a lot, and obviously thinks a lot...not in a pretentious, every-insight-I-have-is-a-rare-gem kind of way, but in a way that you can imagine becoming exhausting for the people around her. But I think I prefer that risk of being exhausting to the carefully curated risk-free version of life on facebook where people only speak in witty one liners. It makes me miss livejournal. (So here I am, updating my blog).
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Jon Chait and Ta-Nehisi Coates do battle.
A while back, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote something that I remember singing the praises of for a few weeks, about challenging yourself intellectually by taking on the very best arguments of your opposition, and not letting yourself getting distracted by the weakest. Apparently, the guy practices what he preaches, because recently when people were piling on Paul Ryan for saying something about how the urban poor could help themselves by abandoning their self destructive poor people ways, Ta-Nehisi walked right past Paul Ryan and threw his glove at Barack Obama, who habitually says not dissimilar things in a slightly different context and tone. And then Jonathan Chait, who might be my second favorite writer after Ta-Nehisi, took up the glove (that's how duels work, right? I'm a little fuzzy on the mechanics) for the honor of Barack Obama and all progressive kind, and the two have been going back and forth on the issue ever since.
Two incredibly smart people are publicly debating one of the most sensitive and volatile issues of liberalism, putting themselves out there in a way that kind of terrifies me. You should go watch.
The Secret Lives of Inner City Black Males
Barack Obama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Poverty and Culture
Black Pathology and the Closing of the Progressive Mind
Barack Obama vs. the Culture of Poverty
Other Peoples' Pathologies
Ta-Nehisi Coates disagrees with 'Jonathan Chait' and so do I
The Blue Period: An Origin Story
Two incredibly smart people are publicly debating one of the most sensitive and volatile issues of liberalism, putting themselves out there in a way that kind of terrifies me. You should go watch.
The Secret Lives of Inner City Black Males
Barack Obama, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Poverty and Culture
Black Pathology and the Closing of the Progressive Mind
Barack Obama vs. the Culture of Poverty
Other Peoples' Pathologies
Ta-Nehisi Coates disagrees with 'Jonathan Chait' and so do I
The Blue Period: An Origin Story
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Veronica Mars Movie!
No idea if anyone is still reading this, or if the list of people who might still be reading this in any way overlaps with the list of people who care about Veronica Mars...but one thing I've realized about myself is that I have a compulsive need to talk through my ideas, and an audience is nice, but not 100% necessary. So here goes (with spoilers, of course).
1) I thought they did a really good job letting Logan grow up. When I heard that the central premise was him being accused of murder (again) because his girlfriend had been found dead (again) I thought it was a pretty discouraging sign. If Logan ten years later is the same directionless kid, hanging out with the Casablancases of the world because they won't ask him any hard questions...that kind of cuts into his attractiveness. On the other hand though, if they gave him a happy life with a serious girlfriend and then killed her off, I'm pretty sure the only realistic way to portray the aftermath would be a padded room, or Veronica trying to clear his name after he committed suicide. Either way, no looking forward to the romantic chemistry between him and Veronica. But the relationship they gave him to Carrie Bishop made sense to me, as did the idea that his involvement in previous murders would make him especially vulnerable to being framed. I also think the military is a pretty perfect fit for him. In Seasons Two and Three, it's really striking how very very alone he is...I get mad at Keith for throwing him out of his house when he fights with Veronica, not so much because that's not the right way to react to someone losing their temper at his daughter, but because I feel like an adult man should realize that what Logan needs is not to be thrown out but to be taken in, and that if he doesn't want that burden falling on Veronica maybe there's a role for him there. I don't honestly know much about life inside the Armed Forces, but I hear that the sense of belonging is one of the real positives. Logan is obviously intelligent, but he's more motivated by bravery. It seemed obvious as soon as they showed him in the uniform. So good job there.
2) Grown up Veronica made slightly less sense to me. I think they probably could have fleshed this out better with more time...it's bizarre how short a movie seems after a TV season. The closest they got was the conversations between her and her dad about success and respect, but I wish they could have fit in a conversation with Piz about their future plans too. I actually liked grown-up Piz, and after rewatching the third season have more of an appreciation of how his character is meant to be conscientious and idealistic in a less embattled way than Veronica herself. I didn't like the premise they used to break her and him up, it felt artificial...but also like there was also just a lot of detail left out. (They apparently broke up for a while and then got back together? They're serious but she hasn't met his parents? He's got a hipster dream job and she's going for corporate sellout?)
3) Speaking of the breakup...one of the real strengths of the series to me is the way that friendships intermingle and get even footing with romantic relationships. Logan maintains his feelings for Lilly while falling in love with Veronica, they both still manage to care about Duncan while falling for each other, Duncan and Veronica have obligations to Logan as his friends even though she's broken up with him and he's stolen his exgirlfriend, and then the same dynamic plays out with Meg, Jackie struggles to understand why Wallace is so committed to a friend instead of "the girl he makes out with", Parker worries about dating Logan without endangering her nascent friendship with Veronica, and Wallace and Weevil both have their issues with Logan that are much more motivated by friendship than jealousy. And then Piz breaks up with Veronica because he can't understand why she's prioritizing keeping Logan out of prison over meeting his parents. Without more context on their relationship it's hard to say for sure, but it's hard to picture Veronica in a serious relationship with someone who gets threatened when his girlfriend cares too much about her male friends. Sure, Logan is not just a friend but an epic love...but she hadn't seen him in nine years, since freshman year of college. (Also, Eli had just gotten shot the day before...is that not a reasonable reason to stay an extra day?)
4) And Eli. It really bugs me in Season Three how Eli is supposedly trying to get his life on track, and Veronica keeps asking him to steal one more car or commit some other crime for completely petty reasons. Sure, if he gets caught, his life is pretty much over...but Madison St. Clair is such a bitch! It seemed unrealistic; oblivious to the rest of the way Eli's character is written as an insightful human being who sees the trade offs and compromises of his environment. I feel the same way about the writers putting him back on a motorcycle at the end of the movie. I get that they're putting everyone back in Neptune and in a facsimile of their original role for possible sequels...but Eli deserves to grow up at least as much as Logan does, and not just be a plot device for when Veronica needs some crime done. (Wallace completely refusing to steal a school file though? That was pretty awesome.)
5) I have similar feelings about the fight at the reunion. I can see why the writers wanted it...it makes a great clip for the trailer, it's one of the few moments of character development that Piz gets, and it provides some nostalgia for fans. But I think it kind of undermined Logan's character development. He's handling being accused of his ex-girlfriend's murder with restraint and maturity, doesn't make stupid decisions to get in trouble anymore, but starts throwing punches at the sight of Veronica's ancient history sex tape? Who did he even find to punch? Not Madison obviously. I think I would have liked the scene better if they had let Piz throw the first punch...or if that's too out of character, maybe Wallace or even Dick. Eli's wife? Pretty much anyone. As is, it comes across as a mindless replay of the TV series' greatest hits. (Same with Veronica and Logan's big kiss. I'm not sure what else they could have done, but I'm pretty sure the scene would have had more impact if it had been less like their first big kiss).
1) I thought they did a really good job letting Logan grow up. When I heard that the central premise was him being accused of murder (again) because his girlfriend had been found dead (again) I thought it was a pretty discouraging sign. If Logan ten years later is the same directionless kid, hanging out with the Casablancases of the world because they won't ask him any hard questions...that kind of cuts into his attractiveness. On the other hand though, if they gave him a happy life with a serious girlfriend and then killed her off, I'm pretty sure the only realistic way to portray the aftermath would be a padded room, or Veronica trying to clear his name after he committed suicide. Either way, no looking forward to the romantic chemistry between him and Veronica. But the relationship they gave him to Carrie Bishop made sense to me, as did the idea that his involvement in previous murders would make him especially vulnerable to being framed. I also think the military is a pretty perfect fit for him. In Seasons Two and Three, it's really striking how very very alone he is...I get mad at Keith for throwing him out of his house when he fights with Veronica, not so much because that's not the right way to react to someone losing their temper at his daughter, but because I feel like an adult man should realize that what Logan needs is not to be thrown out but to be taken in, and that if he doesn't want that burden falling on Veronica maybe there's a role for him there. I don't honestly know much about life inside the Armed Forces, but I hear that the sense of belonging is one of the real positives. Logan is obviously intelligent, but he's more motivated by bravery. It seemed obvious as soon as they showed him in the uniform. So good job there.
2) Grown up Veronica made slightly less sense to me. I think they probably could have fleshed this out better with more time...it's bizarre how short a movie seems after a TV season. The closest they got was the conversations between her and her dad about success and respect, but I wish they could have fit in a conversation with Piz about their future plans too. I actually liked grown-up Piz, and after rewatching the third season have more of an appreciation of how his character is meant to be conscientious and idealistic in a less embattled way than Veronica herself. I didn't like the premise they used to break her and him up, it felt artificial...but also like there was also just a lot of detail left out. (They apparently broke up for a while and then got back together? They're serious but she hasn't met his parents? He's got a hipster dream job and she's going for corporate sellout?)
3) Speaking of the breakup...one of the real strengths of the series to me is the way that friendships intermingle and get even footing with romantic relationships. Logan maintains his feelings for Lilly while falling in love with Veronica, they both still manage to care about Duncan while falling for each other, Duncan and Veronica have obligations to Logan as his friends even though she's broken up with him and he's stolen his exgirlfriend, and then the same dynamic plays out with Meg, Jackie struggles to understand why Wallace is so committed to a friend instead of "the girl he makes out with", Parker worries about dating Logan without endangering her nascent friendship with Veronica, and Wallace and Weevil both have their issues with Logan that are much more motivated by friendship than jealousy. And then Piz breaks up with Veronica because he can't understand why she's prioritizing keeping Logan out of prison over meeting his parents. Without more context on their relationship it's hard to say for sure, but it's hard to picture Veronica in a serious relationship with someone who gets threatened when his girlfriend cares too much about her male friends. Sure, Logan is not just a friend but an epic love...but she hadn't seen him in nine years, since freshman year of college. (Also, Eli had just gotten shot the day before...is that not a reasonable reason to stay an extra day?)
4) And Eli. It really bugs me in Season Three how Eli is supposedly trying to get his life on track, and Veronica keeps asking him to steal one more car or commit some other crime for completely petty reasons. Sure, if he gets caught, his life is pretty much over...but Madison St. Clair is such a bitch! It seemed unrealistic; oblivious to the rest of the way Eli's character is written as an insightful human being who sees the trade offs and compromises of his environment. I feel the same way about the writers putting him back on a motorcycle at the end of the movie. I get that they're putting everyone back in Neptune and in a facsimile of their original role for possible sequels...but Eli deserves to grow up at least as much as Logan does, and not just be a plot device for when Veronica needs some crime done. (Wallace completely refusing to steal a school file though? That was pretty awesome.)
5) I have similar feelings about the fight at the reunion. I can see why the writers wanted it...it makes a great clip for the trailer, it's one of the few moments of character development that Piz gets, and it provides some nostalgia for fans. But I think it kind of undermined Logan's character development. He's handling being accused of his ex-girlfriend's murder with restraint and maturity, doesn't make stupid decisions to get in trouble anymore, but starts throwing punches at the sight of Veronica's ancient history sex tape? Who did he even find to punch? Not Madison obviously. I think I would have liked the scene better if they had let Piz throw the first punch...or if that's too out of character, maybe Wallace or even Dick. Eli's wife? Pretty much anyone. As is, it comes across as a mindless replay of the TV series' greatest hits. (Same with Veronica and Logan's big kiss. I'm not sure what else they could have done, but I'm pretty sure the scene would have had more impact if it had been less like their first big kiss).
Saturday, May 25, 2013
All she wrote.
She as in Charlaine Harris. And I guess specifically in the Sookie Stackhouse universe, since I think she intends to write more in other series. There should probably be some kind of spoiler alert here too.
So! I now know the end of the Sookie Stackhouse saga. Or one of the ends. Maybe True Blood will eventually end up in the same place, but if it does the route will have been so entirely different that it'd be hard to really call it the same. I'm like 90% satisfied with how Charlaine Harris decided to leave the series. It made sense. It seemed like there had been an intentional and overarching theme to the series all along. Sam says something about the realization that he's just a man that happens to be a shifter, and I think the same applies to Sookie too. The beginning of the series is all about how alienated she is from regular people because of her telepathy, and how it's just natural for her to be dating vampires. This book is almost kind of a homecoming. Nobody in Bon Temps ever really suspects her...except for the ones that have been hexed...because even though she's a little odd they know she's good people. People come to her rescue from all over. In the end she's rescued by a whole bunch of very regular humans. Turns out she's not such a misfit after all.
There are things I liked about Eric's exit, and things I didn't like. Sending him off to play the part of subservient husband is pretty interesting, especially because it's never suggested that the subservient role would be emasculating for him or undermine his attractiveness. (Go feminism!). I think it also contributes to the series' ability to make vampires "other" in ways that aren't purely about violence. How well can people who were born hundreds of years ago really adapt to modern day thinking? It's not so much that vampires are sadists as that their thinking is medieval or even pre-Christian. Which means that retribution is often swift and violent, and sometimes your romantic love story gets interrupted by a marriage for strategic alliance. On the other hand though, I feel like the thing about Eric always assuming Sookie would become a vampire was just added in to make their relationship double extra plus impossible, without much in the way of roots in earlier books. I'd have to go back and read some stuff again to be sure, but I seem to remember that vampire/vampire romance isn't really a thing. And the promise to keep Sam from talking to Sookie was just contrived and made no sense to me. But, given that Charlaine Harris has openly admitted that she's a little burned out on the series, I think she did a good job. And I respect her for actually finishing it. The great romantic moments might have been a little lacking, but there was some brainstorming on how to ditch a body, and Sookie's holding a grudge against a powerful vampire for ruining a piece of furniture. So I'm happy.
So! I now know the end of the Sookie Stackhouse saga. Or one of the ends. Maybe True Blood will eventually end up in the same place, but if it does the route will have been so entirely different that it'd be hard to really call it the same. I'm like 90% satisfied with how Charlaine Harris decided to leave the series. It made sense. It seemed like there had been an intentional and overarching theme to the series all along. Sam says something about the realization that he's just a man that happens to be a shifter, and I think the same applies to Sookie too. The beginning of the series is all about how alienated she is from regular people because of her telepathy, and how it's just natural for her to be dating vampires. This book is almost kind of a homecoming. Nobody in Bon Temps ever really suspects her...except for the ones that have been hexed...because even though she's a little odd they know she's good people. People come to her rescue from all over. In the end she's rescued by a whole bunch of very regular humans. Turns out she's not such a misfit after all.
There are things I liked about Eric's exit, and things I didn't like. Sending him off to play the part of subservient husband is pretty interesting, especially because it's never suggested that the subservient role would be emasculating for him or undermine his attractiveness. (Go feminism!). I think it also contributes to the series' ability to make vampires "other" in ways that aren't purely about violence. How well can people who were born hundreds of years ago really adapt to modern day thinking? It's not so much that vampires are sadists as that their thinking is medieval or even pre-Christian. Which means that retribution is often swift and violent, and sometimes your romantic love story gets interrupted by a marriage for strategic alliance. On the other hand though, I feel like the thing about Eric always assuming Sookie would become a vampire was just added in to make their relationship double extra plus impossible, without much in the way of roots in earlier books. I'd have to go back and read some stuff again to be sure, but I seem to remember that vampire/vampire romance isn't really a thing. And the promise to keep Sam from talking to Sookie was just contrived and made no sense to me. But, given that Charlaine Harris has openly admitted that she's a little burned out on the series, I think she did a good job. And I respect her for actually finishing it. The great romantic moments might have been a little lacking, but there was some brainstorming on how to ditch a body, and Sookie's holding a grudge against a powerful vampire for ruining a piece of furniture. So I'm happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)