Good morning! Happy True Blood Day!…Or–if you are like me–Ambivalent True Blood Day!
I thought I’d post this early in the day so that those who wanted to could speculate about the Wiki description. This will be the blog for tonight too, so please return if you are going to watch the episode with us!
Tonight’s drinking game has 2 steps:
1. Make sure to drink a little BEFORE the episode. We will need to make a preemptive drinking strike at the “ridiculosity.”
2. Speaking of “ridiculosity” (yep–I’m coining a new word), during the episode, we drink anytime there’s a blatant “plot hole.” For instance, last week, we would have drunk at the inconsistency of “blood rules.” Jason has enough of Eric’s blood left to dream, but Sookie doesn’t have enough of Bill’s blood left for him to feel if she’s in trouble? Whatever. Be sure to point out the “plot hole” for all.
Here’s the description of Episode 3 from Wiki:
Sookie hatches a dangerous plan to take down the H-Vamps, even as Vince and his armed vigilantes pose an equally serious threat. Lafayette gets high with James; Jason eyes a family future with Violet ; Willa is forced to find a new place to stay; Sarah Newlin sheds her past. Pam offers Eric a compelling reason to return to Louisiana – and be the vampire he used to be.
Item 1: “Hatches” is a good word for Sookie’s plans. You’d think that the girl would have learned to “stop, drop, and fuckin’ THINK” when in the midst of a shit-storm. But no….She’s gonna go to Bill, drink his blood, and——in-fucking-explicably——let him drink hers (I’m betting). And why? So that he can “feel” her if she’s in trouble. And then they are going to go TOGETHER to whatever trouble she’s “hatched.” So Bill won’t need to “feel” her; he’ll be able to SEE her. Hell’s bells, Sook! You really can’t be taught, can you?
Item 2: Sigh. I don’t care about Vince and the Vigilante People–do you? (The Village People would be a different story.) I say–“take out” the town. I can think of very few I still care about in Bon Temps, so let’s have a population purge.
Item 3: Lafayette and James get high again. And I’m bettin’ that will lead to “lovin’.” And I’m AGAINST it! NOT b/c I don’t think Lala deserves love and/or sex, but because it’s another thing coming from left field. Many of you pointed out last week that the scene between Eric and Jason was offensive–NOT because it depicted gay physicality–but b/c the actual gay/lesbian/bisexual couples in the show never actually get legitimate love and sex scenes. And I agree. Watching two girls is not my cup of tea, but where was the Pam & Tara love/sex scene? What about a proper Lala and Jesus scene? Tara had a sex scene w/ her “interest” in S4, but–since we weren’t invested in that relationship–it had less meaning for the viewer. So now it seems like James will “become” suddenly gay b/c he’s high?????? NO–I’m sorry, but that just seems somehow offensive. What? He wouldn’t be attracted and make the moves on Lala if he were sober? TB needs to STOP their practice of people getting drunk/high and then seeking out sex (Sookie w/ Alcide–more than once).
Even Eric seems to use the “trick,” as Jason takes his “liquid courage” before his dream heats up.
Moreover, why can’t Jessica–who deserves a break–have a “real” love? Sigh. I thought Jason and she would be great, but that was squandered, just like Hoyt and her.
Rumor has it that the actor playing James last year quit the show b/c he didn’t want to do the gay scenes. Maybe he quit b/c the gay storyline he was expected to do seems to come out of nowhere for the character of James. I just really think that Lala deserves much better–not a relationship fueled by getting “high.” I always loved the idea that HBO would make this show progressive when it came to people and their rights and preferences (whether they be gay, straight, or in between), but I just don’t think this is the way to do it.
Item 4: Jason and Violet—the more I think about this “relationship,” the more I just think—–NO! It’s just so unhealthy! Given what Jason suffered from the Werepanthers, his relationship with Violet is even more disturbing. And–sorry–I don’t buy the “Jason is Man scene” in the first episode of the season–as if Violet was waiting for him to “reassert” is masculinity. For a show that supposedly pushes the boundaries, we are definitely getting a lot of stereotypes about gender thrown at us. To “be a man,” you have to “take control” and forcefully screw your woman? Being a man means that you have to be the “strong/aggressive” one and the “woman” can’t undermine your authority (as Violet supposedly does in Episode 1 w/ Vince’s crew). Whatever, Jason. Grow up and join the new century.
Arguably, last week’s Jason/Eric fantasy was about Jason reasserting his masculinity too.
Remember it was Jason’s dream, so it was his “script” in a way. And–ironically–that scene depicted “masculinity” in a pretty simplistic and heteronormative way. (Jason tackles Eric for God sakes!) Eric is powerful–and others have pointed out that Jason has probably looked “up” to him as something of an idol: Eric has people falling all over themselves to seek his attention, he’s successful at business, etc. In his fantasy, Jason tries to be the aggressor. Some have even gone as far as to say that Eric was the “bottom” in that scene–which I have problems with b/c–again–that would suggest that all “bottoms must be feminine” and all “tops must be masculine.” That’s not the case with the gay people I know. Moreover, Jason and Eric’s pants were on during the scene–so the “bottom” as well as the “bottoms” remained concealed. If a woman–let’s just imagine that is was me for the sake of this argument 🙂 –was in Jason’s place, jumping onto Eric’s back and wrestling him to the floor and then kissing his back and neck and then receiving kisses from Eric as he turned over and began to sit up, would it have seemed like Eric was the “bottom?” [When Sookie pushed Eric to the bed in his fantasy, was he the “bottom?”] No to both questions. And YES to both! But does any of it change Eric’s inherent badassness or how “masculine/feminine” he is? NO. [Now–I’m going to take a break as I imagine other scenarios.]
Okay–“interlude” and mini-rant over…Back to the Wiki description:
Item 5: Poor Willa…the more I feel sorry for her, the less I wish she had ever been “made.” And–YES–let’s blame the naive vampire for Lettie Mae’s “crazy.” Well done. I wonder where she’ll stay? Hmmmm…. let’s speculate about the “ridiculostic” possibilities. Here’s one for you: Sam. Yes—–that’s my guess; she’ll stay w/ Sam. The town’s people shoot him. That means he’ll need a healing, and Willa gives out blood like candy. I wonder if Sam will be tempted to cheat on the “love of his life.” What was her name again? Oh–yes–Nicole. Do y’all have any speculations?
Item 6: Sarah “sheds” her past? Well—ain’t that “special.” Oh, Sara–which of your “coo coo for cocoa puffs” pasts will you be shedding? I’m guessing NONE of them–not really. But Sara is potentially a good “villain” and since the Hep-V vamps are “tame” and enjoy “nap time,” I would like to see some kind of villain I can enjoy.
Item 7: Eric and Pam——-the only compelling reason to watch. We know the “compelling reason” to return to Louisiana won’t be logical. It won’t be Sookie or Willa. It will likely relate to “revenge.” Hey, maybe Pam will convince Eric that he needs to go back to kill Sara——-or Bill? Too much to hope for? Probably….sigh. We’ll probably get introduced to some knew character—Eric’s “love interest” who probably “did him wrong” in the past. That way the “creators” can keep the Eric/Pam story “safely” away from the other storyline so that none of us will “remember” how they’ve completely discounted the possibility of an Eric/Sookie story.
Well–I have a feeling we are in for a bumpy ride tonight. If you have thoughts on the Wiki description, please share. Otherwise, I hope to see you back here tonight @ 9:00 p.m. EST and 6:00 p.m. California Kat time.
Now–to make us all feel better, let’s stare at this for a moment:
Hopefully, I’ll see you later!