Customer Review

Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2012
A little better than the first installment of the series, though I can't tell if it's because the book is actually better, or if I'm just used to the inane writing style. Nonetheless, my first impression of Living Dead in Dallas is more favorable than Dead Until Dark, though probably not for the reasons the author intended.

Sookie continues to be flat, and I still don't empathize with her at all. I don't understand her character, which seems all over the place to suit the plot, and I don't understand her motivations for anything (again, all over the place to suit the plot). She's just...there, and nothing about her is particularly entertaining or clever, although it's clear that she's meant to be seen that way. Similarly, her powers are also all over the place. I mean, she's a telepath for crying out loud. And, yet, to keep the plot hidden and suspenseful, of course her power craps out at key moments. Just like in the last book, despite being able to read minds, she's got no idea until she walks right into it, and it's just frustrating. What's the point of making her a telepath at all, then? Not to mention, her relationship with Bill continues to be flat and trite; I've read romance novels with better characterization and more interesting characters, at that. Bill and Sookie only WISH they could be a couple from a torrid romance novel, but their efforts are definitely not appreciated, merely cringe-worthy.

Speaking of, why is it that the only vampire that should be written well (Bill, as he is a main character) is the only one that's not written well? Eric, damn him, continues to be interesting in every scene that he's in. I liked Stan the Vampire boss who disguises himself as a geek. Hell, I liked Godfrey as a character, although there were some problems with his entire story, thinking about it. Why would someone who is so old suddenly convert to Christianity so recently? He hasn't had an opportunity during past years? While Bill and Eric and all the other vampires are happily pretending to be moral while still finding nothing wrong with the morals they themselves were raised by, this one particular one decides that, hey, modern mentality is the way to judge myself? I find that incredibly ridiculous; also, it's possible to feel guilt and grief over bad things you've done in your past without "finding" Jesus.

Lastly, the whole Lafayette thing. Um...what the heck was the point of all that? Just so Bill could find out that he was related to them and his stupid reason for his hatred of the Bellefleurs could be revealed? It was pointless. You could cut out Lafayette's death from the beginning and cut out the orgy thing at the end, and nothing else in the book would be affected at all. What happened in Dallas with the Fellowship and Godfrey had absolutely no impact on the sideplot with Lafayette's death, and vice versa - ergo, the whole sideplot itself was just plain unnecessary. Same with the maenad showing up - there just wasn't a point to it when you consider the entire scheme of the book Just another indication of poor writing style.

Thinking back on it, the only reason I gave this book a better rating than the first? Because of Eric and Stan. That's really all that was going for this book.
Report abuse Permalink