I wanna do bad things to you...

Waaaay back 2002, I read the first of the Sookie Stackhouse novels Dead Until Dark. You may know them as the “True Blood” series, but back then they were known as the “Sookie Stackhouse books” or the “Southern Vampire mysteries.” I think there were two of them. I remember thinking the book was passable. I never bothered with the second one.

I finally broke down and watched the True Blood recently and the HBO series was surprisingly good – much better than I remembered the books being. To my recollection, the books were – in terms of writing – not even as good a quality as the Twilight series and that is saying something. (However, True Blood, the tv series, is miles better than the Twilight films thus far. Trust me.)

Given how good the show was I decided to try the books again. I even gave myself a pass on the first book, and started with Living Dead in Dallas. The writing seemed as bad as I remembered, slightly below Twilight quality, only these books aren’t aimed at preteens. By the end of book three, Club Dead which I kept reading because (a) I’m an intellectual masochist and (b) they read fast and I was curious – see (a), the writing has risen to on par with the Twilight books. That said, I actually have bigger problems with the gender dynamic that goes on in the Stackhouse series, and I’d like to talk a bit about that since it is one area that does not all seem to improve over the books.

Firstly, I would like, just once, to see one of the female “sups,” or “supernaturals,” other than Sookie do something ‘heroic.’ I use air quotes there because a lot of the actions and decisions made by any of the characters in the book aren’t heroic at all, but at least they are intended to be in a sort of traditional, hegemonic masculine way – facing down danger, taking a bullet for someone, compound raids and daring rescues, etc. It seems to me that part of the reason that all the supernatural men in Sookie’s world seem to want her (unless the writer expressly connotes a preference for men – even if the character in question is supposed to be bisexual), is because, despite being the most breakable thing around, she tends to shove herself into harm’s way. While Charlaine Harris, the author, tries to pass this off as Sookie’s determination to be her own woman and take care of herself in order to maintain independence in an increasingly dangerous world, writing things like “After a second I realized my help would not be needed, and I decided the Goddess of Really Tough Gals would have to excuse me while I closed my eyes,” undercuts actual any actual strength Sookie displays by making it seem like a kind of show. Sookie wants to be seen as tough, but when she gets an escort to do some digging around in book three, the following lines define the new relationship:

“This was the way life was supposed to be, for normal people. It was morning, time to get up and work, time for a woman to cook breakfast for a man, if he had to go out and earn. This big rough man was eating real food. He almost certainly had a pickup truck sitting out in front of my house.”

“Alcide Herveaux looked plenty rough. He was as big as a boulder, with biceps that I could do push-ups on. He would have to shave a second time if he planned on going out in the evening. He would fit right in on a construction site or a wharf.

He was a proper man.”

Seriously. That’s the line. Sitting right there in its own paragraph. Just like that. “He was a proper man.” Damn, do I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t drive an F-150 or have huge biceps. I guess any real expression of masculinity is foreclosed to them. It’s this type of stereotypical role writing that makes me crazy when it comes to these books. Even if I could ignore the weird repetitive exposition pieces – not from book to book like you get with a good series, like the Harry Potter books or the Anne Rice vampire novels, so that someone can pick up any book in the series and still get the gist of the world mechanics – but from very short chapter to chapter, as though there is legitimate concern that someone might pick up the book and start reading right smack dab from the middle, I cannot get around the weird traditional gender descriptions/dynamics. While, on the next page after the “proper man” line, Sookie is bitching about the “paternalism” of the men in her life, but she seems pissed if there isn’t some paternalism going on. If a chair isn’t pulled out, she notes a lack of “manners,” but doesn’t seem to link this with someone throwing themselves in front of her in the next fight scene.

At the same time, Sookie seems to dither when it comes to whether she wants to get into a “top/bottom” relationship with any of the men around her. (The tv show demonstrates way more sexual agency on Sookie’s part in terms of defining sexual relationships than the books do, and thank god for that or the show would be unwatchable.) I’ve read through over five hundred pages of Sookie, and not once has she made a legitimate first move on anyone. Sex just seems to “happen” to Sookie, even when her inner dialogue sees it coming for a Kentucky mile. When these interchanges happen, she rarely asserts her displeasure, and when she does, it is in a weak way that props up the myth that “no means yes” when she gets carnal with someone for five-thirty minutes before she exhales the equivalent “No, we mustn’t!” Sookie never negotiates her role in these exchanges. Personally I am all for relationships with established sex roles related to top/bottom, possession/ownership, etc. but Sookie repeatedly portrays herself as someone who has no say in the matter and is frustrated by it, all the while playing along. I want to scream at Harris – for the love of goodness, give us a freaking safe word!

While the Twilight gender dynamics may be just as static and traditional and possessory, Bella actually talks to Edward about her needs/wants/desires. Bella very clear talks about when she wants sex, how she wants sex, what she’s comfortable with and how she thinks things should occur. Critiques of the book feel that Bella is painted as weak and sex seeking while Edward is strong, noble, and virtuous (by, of course, denying his basic animal needs – wretch), but to them I say, what the hell is wrong with saying you want it? I may not love that Bella goes ahead and marries Edward to get sex, but at least there was a discussion, clearly defined terms, and a feeling that there was equal participation in sex decision making. In the books, Sookie has someone inside her before she considered whether or not she wants them there.

All of this said, I will probably keep reading the books. If nothing else, there are enough books I can definitely get a conference presentation out of the materials. Most of the critique I’m seeing aimed heavily at Twilight, but within the genre of the vamp novels/films/tv, of which I am an admitted lifetime addict, I really don’t find Twilight as terrible as the critique its taking. To me it just feels young. I remember feeling like Bella when I was fourteen, fifteen, sixteen years old. I remember feeling like the first boy I loved was the only one I ever would, and that living with my heart, once broken, was like trying to breathe without oxygen. I read the books and think, “I would have identified/do identify with this,” even if I do so now with a rueful head shake. I sometimes wonder if that is what scares the crap out of readers. We may not like fifteen year old girls identifying with Bella, and we may wish for a world that acculturates young women differently, but I have to say that Bella demonstrates more sexual agency than I did or most of my friends did until well into our twenties. My disappointments with the books, which are several and varied, don’t have a lot to do with Bella’s sexual relationships. Neither Bella nor Sookie are Nancy Collin’s Sonja Blue, and just once I’d like to see a vamp story with positive role models for top/bottom relationships between two women, but I’ll take Bella over Sookie any day.

What does all this have to do with perfume? Well, honestly, not a lot, but I never promised to talk exclusively about perfume here. Harris does talk about perfume some in the books, and Meyer talks about scent extensively, so maybe I’ll do a sister post that.

Also, in honor Sookie and her poor Southern roots (which I share), I will be starting a week of classic drug store scent reviews a week from tomorrow (8/3). Be on the look out for that. I’ll probably post again often before then, but I wanted to tee that up while I had a chance.