Take a photo of a barcode or cover
rubeusbeaky 's review for:
Living Dead in Dallas
by Charlaine Harris
Trigger Warning:
This book was a dumpster fire. I say this as someone who enjoyed the first book and the TV adaptation, problematic as some parts were. But /this/ book felt like the first was meant to be a stand-alone success, but it gained popularity, the publisher demanded more, and Charlaine Harris was left scrambling to develop a coherent plot in time.
- There are two plots, one in Dallas and one in Bon Temps, and they do not overlap in any way. These conflicts should have been two different books.
- There seems to be a /very/ flimsy theme about how we all have our natures and our cravings, and we can vilify an action or an addiction but not a /whole/ person, so long as that person feels remorse and strives for moderation. But the people who are lumped together as dangerous are: murderers, pedophiles, rapists, religious zealots, and queer folk... Being LGBTQ is not synonymous with being a threat to others, and it is precisely this fundamental failing of representation or understanding which leads to hate crimes and corrupt legal misrepresentation in reality.
- A new adversary, The Fellowship of the Sun, is introduced, and /would have been/ a welcome addition to the series. A religious order which feels that vampires are a threat to humanity, and sets their sites on converting vampires from their natures to being more human, or else offers vampires a chance to repent before "meeting God" in the holy death of facing the sun, would have been a /great/ vehicle for exploring the persecution and misunderstanding of LGBTQ. And Sookie, who is both a God-loving Christian, and a Bill-loving vampire defender, would have been the greatest narrator for wading through the hate inherent in the debate, and finding what positives could bridge both sides... /Instead/, within a few pages of introducing The Fellowship, they are reduced to cartoonish mafia villains who have access to an entire underground bunker full of weapons, and a proclivity for rape and murder... Which Bill responds to with rape and murder... So much for either side.
- The misrepresentation of relationships continues to be problematic. I had my reservations about the first book, but Sookie was a delightful, insightful, strong narrator, so her missteps in her first-ever sexual relationship seemed like a learning curve we were /supposed/ to doubt, and /supposed/ to wish better for her... But this book makes it clear that Charlaine Harris is just another vampire-romance author who doesn't understand kinks, consent, and basic relationship guidelines. A person who has been assaulted and battered twice in this book, should expect sympathy and medical attention, but instead receives ogling stares at her bruised breasts. A person who enjoys rough, spontaneous sex can have a conversation with their partner and - if both parties feel comfortable - make that a part of their routine; but a home invader who uses their superior strength to demand sex from a person is /rape/. A person who compliments their partner's appearance or wardrobe, and buys them apparel to compliment their body, is attentive and trying to speak a love language. A person who criticizes their partner's appearance or wardrobe, rips through their partner's clothing and then buys replacements as an excuse for their violence, and solicits sex even when their partner is injured/asleep/feeling-generally-gross-from-being-both-injured-and-unbathed/says "No!", is abuse/rape. A person who enjoys group, sexual meet-ups between consenting partners is valid, and nobody's business but the partners involved. An orgy without consent or safe words is gang rape. A couple who enjoys BDSM, specifically dominant-sub relationships or blood-letting is someone's kink somewhere, and nobody's business but the partners, but firm consent and safe words are definitely necessary prerequisites. A person whose kink is BDSM who attacks non-consenting strangers is an assailant, possibly a psycho; the fictional misrepresentation ought to have been punished, and the majority of BDSM enthusiasts in reality would /not/ be turned on by harming someone who was not equally enthusiastic about the situation.
In summary, this book fails its plot, its themes, its characters, and its basic premise as a kinky romance novel. Dumpster. Fire.
This book was a dumpster fire. I say this as someone who enjoyed the first book and the TV adaptation, problematic as some parts were. But /this/ book felt like the first was meant to be a stand-alone success, but it gained popularity, the publisher demanded more, and Charlaine Harris was left scrambling to develop a coherent plot in time.
- There are two plots, one in Dallas and one in Bon Temps, and they do not overlap in any way. These conflicts should have been two different books.
- There seems to be a /very/ flimsy theme about how we all have our natures and our cravings, and we can vilify an action or an addiction but not a /whole/ person, so long as that person feels remorse and strives for moderation. But the people who are lumped together as dangerous are: murderers, pedophiles, rapists, religious zealots, and queer folk... Being LGBTQ is not synonymous with being a threat to others, and it is precisely this fundamental failing of representation or understanding which leads to hate crimes and corrupt legal misrepresentation in reality.
- A new adversary, The Fellowship of the Sun, is introduced, and /would have been/ a welcome addition to the series. A religious order which feels that vampires are a threat to humanity, and sets their sites on converting vampires from their natures to being more human, or else offers vampires a chance to repent before "meeting God" in the holy death of facing the sun, would have been a /great/ vehicle for exploring the persecution and misunderstanding of LGBTQ. And Sookie, who is both a God-loving Christian, and a Bill-loving vampire defender, would have been the greatest narrator for wading through the hate inherent in the debate, and finding what positives could bridge both sides... /Instead/, within a few pages of introducing The Fellowship, they are reduced to cartoonish mafia villains who have access to an entire underground bunker full of weapons, and a proclivity for rape and murder... Which Bill responds to with rape and murder... So much for either side.
- The misrepresentation of relationships continues to be problematic. I had my reservations about the first book, but Sookie was a delightful, insightful, strong narrator, so her missteps in her first-ever sexual relationship seemed like a learning curve we were /supposed/ to doubt, and /supposed/ to wish better for her... But this book makes it clear that Charlaine Harris is just another vampire-romance author who doesn't understand kinks, consent, and basic relationship guidelines. A person who has been assaulted and battered twice in this book, should expect sympathy and medical attention, but instead receives ogling stares at her bruised breasts. A person who enjoys rough, spontaneous sex can have a conversation with their partner and - if both parties feel comfortable - make that a part of their routine; but a home invader who uses their superior strength to demand sex from a person is /rape/. A person who compliments their partner's appearance or wardrobe, and buys them apparel to compliment their body, is attentive and trying to speak a love language. A person who criticizes their partner's appearance or wardrobe, rips through their partner's clothing and then buys replacements as an excuse for their violence, and solicits sex even when their partner is injured/asleep/feeling-generally-gross-from-being-both-injured-and-unbathed/says "No!", is abuse/rape. A person who enjoys group, sexual meet-ups between consenting partners is valid, and nobody's business but the partners involved. An orgy without consent or safe words is gang rape. A couple who enjoys BDSM, specifically dominant-sub relationships or blood-letting is someone's kink somewhere, and nobody's business but the partners, but firm consent and safe words are definitely necessary prerequisites. A person whose kink is BDSM who attacks non-consenting strangers is an assailant, possibly a psycho; the fictional misrepresentation ought to have been punished, and the majority of BDSM enthusiasts in reality would /not/ be turned on by harming someone who was not equally enthusiastic about the situation.
In summary, this book fails its plot, its themes, its characters, and its basic premise as a kinky romance novel. Dumpster. Fire.