Anita Blake perspective coloring other stories
Finished the latest Sookie Stackhouse last night, "All Together Dead" [book 7] by Charlaine Harris. *sigh* It was ok. It's still the paranormal series I follow that most gives me echos of "not quite Anita Blake". Like if there are two ways of doing something and the Anita Blake series goes one way and the Sookie Stackhouse series goes the other, I'm invariably falling in the Anita Blake camp. And if they go the same way, it feels like a pale echo.
I think the "Northern" big city vs Southern small town thing is the biggest perspective difference. Although, I wouldn't exactly call St. Louis or Baltimore (where I'm from) Northern. We're South of the Mason/Dixon line. Maybe it's more of an urban/rural thing, or maybe it's "the deep south". While I don't typically ride cabs or buy hot dogs from street vendors, it certainly isn't as foreign a concept as it seemed to be for Sookie.
Anyone else looking at Quinn on one side and Eric on the other and thinking "Tri"? *g* Growing bond - growing powers. I like Sookie's psychic friend, I'm blanking on his name. Hmmm, shades of Larry? You get the picture. Oh, and the hate groups out to destroy the vamps. That's not at all familiar. /end sarcasm
Did I do this exact same argument for the last book? Maybe. I still like them enough to read them, even in hardback, I just have this commentary going on in the back of my head. Maybe every book is compared against others you've read. Every film, every song on the radio, every new guy that turns your head, .... It's just a bit more blatant here, at least for me.
Speaking of another story I went into with Anita Blake on the mind... I rented "Libertine". Let's just say when Laurell calls Jean-Claude a former libertine and I look at Johnny Depp's role I see no similarities what so ever. God, that was a bad movie.
Wikipedia:
Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, the Marquis de Sade, and Aleister Crowley. "Libertine", like many words, is an evolving one, defined today as "a dissolute person; usually a person who is morally unrestrained". In modern times, libertinism has been associated with sado-masochism, nihilism, and free love.
See, that could cover either. The singular thing that Johnny Depp's character lacked was any sort of charm. I should have turned off the movie after his opening monologue where he said "you aren't going to like me". He was right. But the title and Johnny looking yummy (at least at the beginning) was enough for me to overlook bad reviews. Oh, well. Can I have that two hours of my life back now?
When Laurell talks of Jean-Claude being a libertine, I see the over indulging in food (or in this case blood) and sex and debauchery. But there is a sort of bad boy appeal to that figure that can draw you in. It's like looking at the seven deadly sins from the opposite perspectives. Like as long as you stay on this side of the tipping point, the vices are appealing in a naughty way. It's interesting that the wikipedia article lists the Marquis de Sade, because BDSM is very much one of those vices. As long as you're on the safe side, naughty fun. Go past a certain point... revulsion.