Mid-Week Review: True Blood: Season 3, Episode 1

In my mind, there are a few cut and dry things in this world that define people. Things that you can either be one or the other, but never both. For instance:

If you're politically minded, you're either a Democrat or a Republican.

You either like the color pink or you don't.

You either believe in UFOs or you don't.  

You're either an over or under toilette-paper person.

You either like cats or you like dogs.

You either cheer for the vampires or the werewolves.

As for me, I'm a werewolf guy.  Have been since I first saw the old 1940s movie, The Wolf Man, when I was a kid.  Coincidently, I'm also a dog person.  Don't get me wrong, I think the blood suckers are cool and all, but there's just something awesome about the conflicted nature of werewolf that is attractive to me.  So it goes without saying that when I learned that one of my favorite shows on television, True Blood, was going to be bringing in the werewolves, I was all kinds of school girl giddy.  

For the uninitiated, True Blood (as shown on HBO) is based off of the excellent Sookie Stackhouse novels by Charlaine Harris.  The title character, Sookie, is a barmaid living in rural Louisiana.  She's pretty much like any other small town girl, except for the fact she's telepathic and is in a world where vampires have recently come out of hiding in an attempt to live alongside normal humans.  As you can imagine, this would create some interesting problems and relationships as vampires kind of feed off of humans.  The universe that Harris has created is deep (there are currently 10 books and several short stories in the Sookie Stackhouse series) and phenomenally unique considering the subject matter (vampires) has been beaten staked to death in recent years.

** POSSIBLE SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT **

The television show has taken some liberties with the content of its written counterpart over the first two seasons, but has followed the general outline of the book in regards to characters and major plot points.  You'll find most of the major players from the books in the show, and here's a quick run down of the most important:

Sookie - She's lived with her grandmother and brother from the time she was little.  Her parents died in an accident.  

Jason - Sookie's handsome, but incompetent, brother

Sam Merlot - Sookie's boss and maybe best friend

Bill Compton - The first vampire Sookie meets, and her first love

Eric Northman - Owner of a vampire bar and sheriff over all of the vampires that live in Sookie's area of Louisiana

There are BUNCHES of other great characters, which I'll reference in the review (s), but they won't mean much unless you're familiar with the show/stories.  

SO IF YOU HAVEN'T READ OR WATCHED, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?  GO CATCH UP AND COME BACK HERE AND CHAT ME UP!!!  

(FYI, the books and show are for mature audiences) 

Without further adieu, here's my review for the inaugural episode of season three.  

**MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD, TURN BACK NOW**

EPISODE TITLE: BAD BLOOD

Last we saw from season 2, Bill had presumably been kidnapped after proposing to Sookie; Jason had shot Tara's boyfriend Eggs; Sam had gone in search of his real family; and Eric had further weaseled his way into Sookie's mind by tricking her into drinking some of his blood after the whole Fellowship of the Sun fiasco.

Season 3 starts up EXACTLY where we left off.  Sookie comes out of the bathroom to find Bill gone, and the ball starts rolling from there.  We quickly catch up to Bill and find that he has indeed been kidnapped by some kind of gang.  They get busy draining his blood on the car ride to wherever they're taking him (it's clear they work for someone else).  However, they get more than they bargain for when Bill escapes.  

Meanwhile, Jason is trying to come to grips with the fact that he accidentally put a bullet between someone's eyes.  As you may recall, police detective Andy Bel Leflour took the blame for the shooting, saying it was self-defense.  Jason is pretty humorous in this episode, particularly when Andy tries to convince him to go back to his womanizing days so people won't suspect he's had anything to do with the shooting.  I really grew to love his character in the show over the course of last season, so I hope they can figure out some clever thing to do with him again.  I'm not sure the PTSD from his accidental killing is enough for an entire season ...  

The bigger drama from that situation comes from Tara, who's beyond upset that Eggs is dead.  She basically blows a gasket in this episode by blaming/attacking Arlene (who had it coming BY A MILE) and Sookie (who kind of is responsible), and then trying to kill herself.  I felt like Tara's character was sort of channeling the earlier crazy (er) versions of her mother from past seasons.  I don't like this Tara as much, but I think I can see where they're headed with her.  I did LOVE Lafayette in this episode!  It's nice to seem him back and interacting with his cousin.

Back to Sookie.  She's convinced that something bad has happened to Bill, so she goes to Eric (naturally) for help.  Eric is less than enthusiastic, and basically tells her he has bigger fish to fry.  We find out that he's not lying (for once) as apparently the big whig vampires have caught on to his under the table dealing of vampire blood.  Not only that, but the queen vampire of Lousiana, Sophie, is also being implicated.  You may recall that last season ended with Sophie and Eric having conversations about their elicit blood business (she's in cahoots with him).  There's some tension building here that'll be fun to see shake out.  Perhaps the biggest revelation is that Eric had in fact sent someone to kidnap Bill, but was beaten to the punch.  He didn't expressly say that he was going to kill Bill (HA!), but I think it was implied.  Bill is the only other vamp that knows he's selling V illegally, after all.  Not to mention that he's got eyes for Sook.  

There was a little bit with Sam in this episode, but other than a crazy dream (it involves he, Bill, and a kiss - that's all I'll say), it was pretty snooze.  He's my favorite character, so it was a little bit of a letdown.  

What about the wolves, you're asking?  Well I was asking the same thing.  It wasn't until the very end of the episode that we finally get some payoff.  Bill escapes from his captors injured and badly in need of some blood, luckily he stumbles upon an old lady living alone in the woods.  After he discovers that he's been taken all the way to Mississippi, he partakes in a little of her  blood (in a very gentlemanly way, I might add), and then heads outside to find that he's been tracked down by werewolves.  The episode ends with Bill being surrounded by wolves and him spoiling for a fight.

Overall, it was a GREAT start to the season!  There were some subplots I didn't discuss, namely some fun stuff with Hoyt and Jessica (Bill's vampire ward) and Arlene makes a discovery of sorts.  Perhaps my favorite thing from this episode was an expanded role for Pam (Eric's second in command); she's one of the best characters in the book, but hasn't really done much in the show.  That looks like it'll be changing.

Still, I can't help but look forward to the next few weeks as some of my favorite characters from the books start showing up in the third and fourth volumes.  I'm very excited to see which weres will get to see next week!         

How about a little tune to get us through the day?  If this isn't a blast from the past, nothing is ...

Get Moving Monday ... Right on, man. Right on.

O.K., my get moving has left me, so I'll be brief ...  


I just wanted to share some exciting news on the writer front; apparently a bunch of GENIUS YA authors and agents have decided to join forces and put on a FREE online writers conference.


FREAKING FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here's the dirty:

It's called WRITEONCON

It's being held August 10-12

There are some absolutely ACE agents and literary pros already signed up to present

You can attend the entire event in your Thundercats PJs

IT's F.R.E.E.


Here's the link.

Now, a funny.

In the words of Uncle Rico, "Right on.  Right on."


You may happy dance now.

Mid-Week Review: Mmmmmm Pizza

I’m back! How about a little blast from the past to get us going?




Wow. Chicago is more awesome than I’d ever imagined. I’ve always kind of claimed it as my unofficial hometown, which is odd to some seeing as how I’ve never actually visited until now.

Being from Oklahoma, I never really had my ‘own’ pro-sports team to cheer for so I had to adopt teams from other states. As a kid one of my first real sports memories was watching the Bears win the 85 Super Bowl. I was a Bears fan from that point on. I remember watching my first NBA game some years later; it was the NBA Finals game 6, Chicago Bulls Vs Portland Trailblazers. Michael Jordan hit 6 threes in that game and I was a diehard Bulls guy from then on. In fact, the only pro-sport that I don’t cheer for Chicago teams in is baseball (go Dodgers!).

Suffice to say, I had high expectations going into the week.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll hit the highlights:

1) I have a great friend that lives near Chicago (Evanston), so I wanted to visit him and his family. I hadn’t seen his oldest son in 3 years (he’s going to be 6 soon), and I’d never met his youngest son (was born the summer after we parted about 3 years ago). Furthermore, I hadn’t seen my friend and his wife in over 2 years. I got to spend sooo much time with them just getting to hang out; we took the boys to swim lessons, they came to our hotel to swim in the saltwater pool several times, we went to LegoLand … basically, I just got to be a part of their lives for a week which was absolutely perfect. It was really hard for me to say goodbye to the boys at the end of the week.

2) I went to a baseball game at Wrigley Field. It was Cubs Vs Dodgers (that’s right, I got to see my favorite baseball team to boot!), and our seats were about 20 yards behind first base. We dodged foul balls all night, and IT WAS AWESOME! I had a Chi-Town style braut (which basically means loaded with mustard, peppers, relish, etc.), made fun of Cubs fans, and marveled at the old beauty of Wrigley Field. Dodgers won, by the way.

3) To finish the week, my wife and I transferred hotels to stay downtown (we were in the burbs for her conference). We rode the El train in all of its rattling and jostling glory. Just the variance in architecture that Chicago offers makes any type of commuting worth it (for visitors). If you’ve never been, you should also know that Chicago is one of the friendliest, cleanest, and green (vegetation-wise) big cities around. The only other city I’ve been to that compares to the green factor is Seattle. Our hotel was right off of Michigan Ave. which is basically a fancy outdoor shopping mall that extends for miles. We walked to Grant and Millennium Parks daily (it boggles the mind that a city as big as Chicago could have so many massive parks in the middle of it), we had deep-dish pizza, we went to the Chicago Art Institute Museum (fans of Monet and van Goh MUST go), we went to the Field Museum of Natural History (their famous T-Rex, Sue, is having a big 10th anniversary thing), we ate amazing meals, we had drinks on the roofs of a buildings … there is just way too much to cover and we were only downtown for three nights!

All in all it was an amazing trip that left me planning my next visit (hopefully sooner than later).

Now, without further ado, I present a Chicago version of the Mid-Week Review:

Chicago-Style Deep Dish Pizza

For those who are unfamiliar with this style of pizza, let me explain. Unlike traditional pizza Chicago-style pizza is really, really thick. We’re talking 2-4 inches. The crust has more in common with pie (the dessert kind) than anything else, but similar to traditional pizza it goes on the bottom. That’s where the similarities between Chi-Pizza and the norm end. Once the crust is laid out, a layer of cheese is placed directly on top and then toppings like pepperoni, sausage, etc. are placed on top of the cheese. Finally, a massive layer of sauce is poured on so that the top of the pizza is sauce, not cheese. Basically, it’s the reverse order of how you’d normally top a pizza.

For this review, I’m going to be comparing the two pizzas I sampled during my stay.

The Contenders: Lou Malnati’s Pizza Vs Giordano’s Stuffed Pizza

The Crust

Unlike other types of pizza where crust can be an afterthought, Chicago pizza requires a good amount of it simply to hold together all of those toppings. So crust is a big deal.

Lou’s – The crust was appropriately flaky, but not dense. It wasn’t greasy, which is a big key with this kind of pizza. You wouldn’t want to eat apple pie with a greasy crust, nor would you want tons of grease here. It added texture to the pizza, but wasn’t over emphasized. This is the Chicago-style crust for the pizza lover who doesn’t normally like crust.

Giordano’s – Unfair advantage time: Giordano’s specializes in stuffed crust pizza, and I’m not talking about that nasty stuff Pizza Hut does. There are basically two layers of crust in this pizza with a layer of gooey awesome cheese in between. The crust at Giordano’s is buttery and super flakey. It’s basically the best crust I’ve ever had for pies, pizza, cobblers, etc. ever.

Winner: Giordano’s

The Cheese

One may think that cheese is cheese, but that’s just not so. If you’ve ever had pizza made with ‘real’ mozzarella (not that shredded junk from Kraft), you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Lou’s – The cheese was plentiful and tasty. It was gooey and perfectly stretchy. In short, it was the real deal.

Giordano’s – Another unfair advantage as Giordano’s simply has more cheese (between what they put in the crust AND what they put in as pie filling). I love cheese, and the cheese at Giordano’s was amazing.

Winner: Giordano’s

Toppings

Are you a pepperoni fan like myself? You like sausage and mushrooms? Just cheese? Rest easy, you can get pretty much any topping you want with Chicago-style pizza. For the sake of this very scientific study, I had pepperoni on both pizzas (although we did add shrooms to the Giordano’s).

Lou’s – The pepperoni at Lou’s was spicy, thick, and perfect. It was a high-quality sausage. It’s worth noting that Lou’s specializes in Italian sausage. It’s not the crumbly kind, either. They use a flat patty that lines the entire bottom of the pizza.

Giordano’s – This is where Gior’s cheese and crust begin to work against them. The pepperoni and shrooms were almost an afterthought. The roni was good, but all I could think about was cheese and crust.

Winner – Lou’s. Overall, Lou’s offers more unique pizzas and the toppings there (like the sausage) are kind of their calling card.

Sauce

As far as filling goes, for many the sauce is THE ingredient in Chicago pizza as it’s the most present topping by volume.

Lou’s – The sauce at Lou’s is spicy, which is my thing. It’s got a basil bite to it that I love, and it doesn’t need red pepper to make your mouth warm. It’s chunky too.

Giordano’s – The sauce at Gior’s is mild, but fresh. It tastes like they just whipped it up and put it on your pizza to order. You can actually taste the tomatoes. In the end, I felt it suffered the same fate as the toppings – it just couldn’t compete with the cheese and crust.

Winner – Lou’s.

OVERALL WINNER: TIE

Both of these pizzas were amazing. I suppose you could pick between what you value most in your pizza (sauce and toppings Vs cheese and crust). I would probably give a slight personal nod to Giordano’s, but Lou’s is equally delicious, just in different ways.

My advice? If you make it to Chicago try all of them!

Now I've made myself hungry ...

Mid-Week Review: Brave, Brave Sir Robin

Robin Hood (Movie – 2010)

Welcome, ye merry men and women! Tis but another installment of ye old MWR. What ho? A review of the latest Robin Hood flick, me thinks.

Okay, that’s enough of that …

We all know the story of Sir Robin of Loxley: A nobleman becomes disenfranchised with the class system of feudal Europe and decides to fight the man by stealing from the wealthy and giving to the po. Along the way he finds love (Lady Marian) , a nemesis (Sherriff of Nottingham), and bromance (Merry Men).

Over the years there have been many, many iterations of this story. A few come to mind: Errol Flynn’s gaunt tight-clad heroism; Prince Costner’s aged rouge with charm; Mel Brooks’ hysterical Manly Men in Tights. I’ve enjoyed them all.

When it came to the latest installment, I had but one question: Could they bring something to this story that hadn’t already been done? On paper, I was hopeful. The cast looked top notch (Russell Crowe & Cate Blanchett as Robin and Marian respectively), the director had street cred (Ridley Scott of Gladiator, Alien, and Blade Runner fame), and the scope looked epic (this was going to Robin Hood Supersized). Why then, was I left wishing for merrier days?




The Story:

First things first, this is not the Robin Hood you know. This Robin (Crowe) is not a nobleman, and is in fact not Robin of Loxley at all. He is a somewhat lowly archer in King Richard the Lion Heart’s army. The King is busy trying to conquer lands (not in the Crusades, btw), and is portrayed as a somewhat less than desirable fellow (somewhat true). When the King is killed in battle (sort of really happened), the real Robin of Loxley (the King’s right-hand man) is tasked with taking the crown back to England. Unfortunately, Robin of L is bushwhacked on the way by the French (damn the French!), but before they can make off with the crown the other Robin/Crowe intervenes. Crowe runs off the French and agrees to the dying Robin of L’s last wish: he will take the crown back to England and also take his sword back to his father.

Crowe is accompanied by a group of fellow archers/warriors who really only seek their freedom. You see, before they scared off the Frenchies, Crowe-Robin and these boys had been locked up by the King for disorderly conduct. During the chaos that ensued after the King’s death, they escaped. Now that they have been tasked with returning the crown they decide to disguise themselves as the nobles who had been escorting the crown in the first place.

Confused? So was I. This is perhaps the first place in the movie that the plot goes all wonky.  It's a sign of things to come.

Plowing right ahead, Crowe-Robin does in fact return the crown to an even less-savory new King. Crowe-Robin then takes the real Robin’s sword back to the father of Loxley. Once in Loxley, he finds Dame Marian tending to the family land while her husband’s away at war. After breaking the news to her about dead Robin, Crowe-Robin takes the sword to Daddy Loxley only to find that the Old Man is blind and a little crazy. Papa Loxley, realizing that the King will likely take their land once he’s gone as there is no male ere, convinces Crowe-Robin and Marion to ‘pretend’ that Crowe-Robin is the REAL Robin of Loxley.

See what they did there? Yeah, I thought it was thin as well. Suffice to say, the rest of the story follows the same flimsy pattern, so we’re going to skip ahead …

The French are secretly planning to overthrow England (when are the French not secretly planning to do something despicable?), and it’s up to Crowe-Robin to convince the new buffoon King that it’s not the poor who are trying to destroy him.

The Cast:

Crowe (other Robin) and Blanchett (Marian) are the glue that holds this movie together. I found their chemistry to be genuine, and their acting to be excellent. Blanchett provides a grounded, almost earthly, version of Marian that seems very at home in the squalid medieval England. Crowe is not the charming Robin of past films, but is just dynamic enough to balance his inherent tough-guyness.

The rest of the cast perform well, but mostly take a very big backseat to Crowe and Blanchett. There is no Morgan Freeman this time around, and the character of the Sherriff of Nottingham might as well not have been there at all.

How was the Movie?

Disappointing. There were so many things that could have gone right for this movie. However, I was underwhelmed by the majority of it. The cast wasn’t deep enough, the music not inspiring, the scenery (while beautiful) nothing that hasn’t been seen before, and the story was all over the place. I’m neglecting to mention major plot points so as not to spoil it, but there is something revealed at the end of the movie that should have been shown in the first scene. It wasn’t, and as a result I spent the entire movie trying to fit this Robin Hood into what I knew about the story coming in. I was distracted from the start.

It isn’t awful, but I’m confident in saying it won’t be what you’re expecting. This one should probably be a rental.

Get Moving Monday ... AWWWOOOOOO

Wow! What a weekend … My computer crashed, so I spent the majority of the weekend just trying to get everything back up and running. This post is proof that I’ve managed a small level of success in that department.

However, in spite of all the chaosery, I did manage to get a couple of writing related tasks accomplished.

1) I met with my online critique group Sunday morning to finish up the two part crit of my WIP. The group has been so helpful (you rock the block LB & Julie), and I’m raring to run through the manuscript again with fresh ideas.

2) I met with my ‘live’ critique group Sunday afternoon to discuss chapters 8 & 9 of the aforementioned WIP. During this meeting we got on the subject of the three act story structure. It proved to be a nice refresher, so I thought I’d make it today’s topic.

I always plan a story around the idea of the three act structure, but sometimes it gets lost a bit in the drafting. The idea behind this structure is to provide a simple (yet time tested) approach to telling a story. It’s as basic as it sounds: each story can be viewed in three major sections (beginning, middle, and end) with each section serving some purpose. For the sake of review, I’ll offer the highlights of the concept:

ACT 1: THE DIRTY

The first act would be used to establish the foundation details of the story such as setting, cast, and plot. The events, problems, and/or goals that set the main character into motion would also be introduced.

POOP + FAN MOMENT (PFM) #1: The first act typically ends with the main character (mc) encountering a significant story related problem/conflict/twist/revelation that sends the story into the second act.

ACT 2: THE MEAT & POTATOS

The second act of the story is used to show how the event or problem introduced in Act 1 unfolds as it relates to the setting, cast, etc. This is the hero’s journey, and the place where the bulk of the story telling takes place.

POOP + FAN MOMENT #2: The second act typically ends with a major complication or a rising of the stakes in the mc’s quest. In short, it’s something that will propel the story into the climax/final act.

ACT 3: THE WRAP UP

The final act serves as a resolution to the problems introduced in the first act as well as any other issues that might have cropped up during the second act.

Let’s use the familiar children’s story of Little Red Riding Hood (LRRH) as an example:

Act 1: LRRH’s grandmother has taken ill (the problem), so she decides to take her some food (goal). Unfortunately, Gran lives outside of the village, so LRRH is going to have to travel through the dangerous woods to help her.

PFM #1: Shortly after leaving the village LRRH encounters the wolf. Wolfy doesn’t attack right away (let’s save that!) for fear of getting caught by the villagers and hunters. He decides to stall LRRH by suggesting she pick some flowers for Gran. He then proceeds to try to make it to Gran’s before LRRH. (Where he can presumably bushwhack her in private.)

Act 2: LRRH finally makes it to Gran’s, but finds that grandma has taken a turn for the worse: apparently grandma has sprouted fur, fangs, and taken on a bad case of fleas. Alas! It turns out that it’s actually the wolf dressed as grandma and he has eaten her alive! (Hey, this isn’t the watered down version you tell your kids.)

PFM #2: The wolf catches LRRH and eats her too! This cannot end well, right?

Act 3: A hunter finds Wolfy all fat-bellied and sleepy, and then proceeds to cut him open and save Gran & LRRH (guessing wolf bellies aren’t air tight?) Gran gets better, LRRH is saved = happy ever after.


Three act structures are pretty simple, no? Sadly, I’m finding the application to be a bit trickier than the theory, but I really believe it to be a sound way of telling a story. So my question to y’all: Have you used three act structures in your own stories? If so, to what success? If no, can you fit your story into this structure?

As always, happy writing this week and a funny!