[Exit, Pursued By A Sloth]

truebloodwillpsychuout:

pbt1:

cantbelieveididthis:

exitpursuedbyasloth:

him-e:

1. Bill didn’t execute Eric even though the Authority ordered him to (yeah, he was the one who suggested the execution in the first place, but still);

2. Bill and Eric screwed up at the vampire/human convention: Eric was cursed and caused a mess involving human deaths, which was disastrous for the AVL;

3. Bill and Eric killed Nan Flanagan, a member of the Authority;

4. Bill and Eric conspired with Nora to run away after they caused the deaths of other members of TA who had them in custody;

5. I also got that both Bill and Eric (especially Eric) are suspected to be part of the Sanguinist Movement which is an enemy of the Authority.

On top of that, there’s the fact that they didn’t kill Russell as they claimed, but TA wasn’t aware of that fact until Bill told them.

1. Technically, the Authority didn’t order Bill to execute Eric. He asked for permission to execute him (giving misleading information to strengthen his case). Nan said she was going to talk to the Authority about it, but we never saw their answer. We only really have Bill’s word that they gave permission. At best, he was given permission to do so. At worst, he wasn’t, and was either trying to make himself look magnanimous by letting him go or chickened out of killing him anyway.

Nan was under the impression that Eric was dead, but that doesn’t mean the Authority gave permission.

Nan: “The last I heard, you were about to show him the True Death.”

Bill: “I changed my mind.”

Nan: “What a decisive leader you’ve turned out to be.”

That doesn’t particularly sound like Bill was ordered to kill Eric, it sounds like his fate was all up to him.

Since it doesn’t appear everything Nan and Bill were doing was on the up and up, they could have come up with a plan to kill him on the down-low. And Bill either didn’t go through with it, or was prevented from doing so.

And if Eric’s beloved sister was a member of The Authority, I doubt they ever would have given permission to execute him. Not without assessing the situation for themselves.

2. Nobody ever found out about The Tolerance Thing, so disaster avoided. They all kept it mum.

3. Nan was set to be taken out anyway, so them killing her would just be an excuse to kill them, not a reason.

4. Yeah, they did that one.

5. If that wasn’t all interrogator mind-games or some kind of vampire version of “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party”, I believe there is something to them suspecting Bill is a member of the Sanguinistas. Everything we’ve seen of his past and his actions are in keeping with a man who thinks humans are cows that can be fucked. With Eric, not so much. He might have a bleak view of humanity in general, but, well, dude’s a thousand years old and kinda has a point; the human condition is kinda bleak. But Bill’s pointless, brutal sadism? Nothing Eric has ever done even compares.

I disagree with Bill being a Sangunista. While in the past, especially around Lorena, he definitely did that. But he hasn’t really been killing people lately. At least not food wise. He seemed to be more of a biter and setting free. Just saying. I wouldn’t say he was totally a mainstreamer but neither he nor Eric seemed to be in the habit of killing their food since we’ve met them. Now Bill has killed quite a few folks to look good to Sookie, etc. but I really don’t recall him actually killing his meals. And I don’t think we’ve ever seen Eric kill his meals just for the sake of killing them. There was always a reason that person died and it wasn’t about a meal.

I suspect that Bill has been killing still but we have not been made privy to those occasions yet. I suspect Gran, Renee, Maudette. Even the old woman in Jackson was shown to still be alive but I doubt it. Bill was entirely too strong for just taking “a nip” of the old broad. I believe he sucked her dry. I think that we will be shown at some point all of the “deeds” that Mr. Compton has been up to. The big reveal will happen sooner or later. I think later like when he meets the true death.

1) Roman made it clear in the scene above that Bill was ordered to execute Eric in S4. “The true death for Northman means the true death for Northman.” Yes, Bill made up lies to get the order, but once it was issued, Bill HAD TO DO IT. When he didn’t, he violated the Authority decree.

That’s not at all what “The true death for Northman means the true death for Northman.” sounded like to me, and I don’t think it’s clear that it means what you think it means. I thought he was trying to let Bill know (without letting Eric know) that he knows Bill tried to kill Eric without Authority authorization. His long hard stare at Bill, the way he said “I am the Authority” before saying the Northman line, was dripping with significance. Bill always was too big for his britches, overstepping his bounds, antagonizing authority figures…it would be rather in keeping with that type of personality to act as though he was the Authority, that he had every right to execute Eric if he wanted to. Maybe even lied about having been given permission. And oooo, wouldn’t that just chap Roman’s hide, that this pissant toddler puppet-king thinks he can usurp his authority, and wouldn’t that be quite the thing he could hold over Bill’s head, threatening to tell Eric the truth (which Eric probably already knows, but the point remains).

And how do you explain the Authority giving consent to kill Eric with no investigation when his beloved sister sits on the Council?

And Bill was pretty fucking casual about not killing Eric in season 4. One would think both he and Nan would be a bit more concerned about him committing treason than “Yeah, I decided not to do that, or whatever.”

Nowhere was there ever confirmation that The Authority ordered the execution of Eric Northman except from the mouth of Bill. And he’s a lying liar who lies. He’s even got a tiny birthmark in the shape of a lyre on his uvula.

2) It doesn’t matter that no humans learned about the Tolerance Festival fiasco or why it happened. It happened. Bill and Eric were there and are getting the blame.

But they also took out the necromancing witch who caused the ruckus and who could have killed all vampires, so that basically cancels each other out, which was pointed out by Kibwe, I believe.

3) It doesn’t matter if Nan was on her way out. She was a member of the Authority, and killing her was treason.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. They set Nan up to be killed by them so that they could arrest them for treason. Nan’s death was an excuse, but not the real reason.

4) Not killing Russell when they were ordered to do so was also treason.

No argument from me there. Except that they didn’t even know about it until the very end of this episode, after they were brought in.

5) There is no evidence that Bill is a member of the Sanguinista Movement. This movement is only a few years old because the Great Revelation only happened like 4 years ago. Mainstreaming wasn’t an option before then. Whatever Bill did in the past with Lorena is irrelevant. When Nan investigated him, he wasn’t killing the humans he was feeding on. That’s why he was recruited by the Authority. Frankly, belonging to a movement requires passion, dedication, and a belief that a cause is more important than you—qualities that Bill Compton consistently had been shown to lack. I doubt that Bill ever believed in the Authority’s cause either. He most likely only joined because Nan promised him power.

Well, if you want to think that being a sadistic, raping, brutal thrill-killer who treated humans like less than cattle is irrelevant to him possibly belonging to a group of vampires who treat people like cattle, go right on ahead.

And he still gets off on his victims pain and fear to this day, so it’s not like he’s reformed.

I also fail to see the relevancy of how old the movement is, though I disagree with your notion that a Humans Are Food, Not Friends movement could have only existed within the past four years. Vamps ALWAYS had to maintain a low profile, to blend in with people, to not draw attention to themselves. And I’m sure there were always vamps who said “FUCK IT. Let’s have a blood bath and leave the bodies in public.” (see Bill and Lorena and the Monroe trio). Mainstreaming is about co-existence with humans, a need that predated the Great Revelation. It’s evolved since then, certainly, but it’s not a new notion. But whether it’s young or old, Bill could still support it. I agree that he lacks the quality of believing a cause could be more important than him, but maybe he’s just a really shitty member of the movement.

6) Rene killed Sookie’s Gran and Maudette, and Sookie killed Rene in self-defense. Rene had issues with vampires and women who slept with vampires because of his sister.

Or he was glamoured to think so. Sookie can see when something has been glamoured out of a person, but it’s not been shown she can tell the difference between a very good implanted glamour-memory and a real memory. Not to mention she was a bit stressed at the time, I’m sure her focus was elsewhere.

Wasn’t it ever so convenient that just when Bill began to stalk Sookie, a fangbanger killer started killing fangbangers? And wasn’t it ever so convenient that this crime spree took away the last two members of Sookie’s family, who were kind of an impediment to Bill procuring her? If one was dead and the other in jail, who would notice if she just…disappeared? People quit jobs and lose touch with friends, but if a person’s family has no idea where she is…well. And wasn’t it ever so convenient that Bill deliberately threw her in the path of that oh so convenient danger by leaving visible bite marks on her neck that he could have easily healed? Wasn’t it ever so convenient that Sookie was in mortal peril and just might turn to her supernatural neighbor for protection? Wasn’t it ever so convenient that Bill was able to hear a car door across the the graveyard, but not a woman being murdered? Wasn’t it ever so convenient that he didn’t recognize Rene’s scent being inexplicably in Sookie’s bedroom, a place it had no right to be? Or that Sam didn’t? Wasn’t it ever so convenient that this story reached it’s climax during the day, allowing Bill to daringly try to rescue Sookie in the daytime, making him look ever so brave and like he really loved her…except of course the fact that he knew her blood was magical sunscreen and all. But she didn’t know that, so I’m sure he looked so very brave to her.

He came from another town and had a history that nobody knew about. He lived under an assumed name. Why would Bill know or care about him? Bill’s job was to investigate Sookie not Rene.

Procure Sookie. His job was to procure her, and present her to the Queen so that she might begin her life of slavery, rape, and forced feeding. Let us not forget. He wasn’t simply going to check her credit score.

But yes, it’s his job to get Sookie. Sookie cannot be glamoured into compliance. He has to get her some other way. Perhaps by orchestrating some scenario when she is endangered by a murderous douche, not unlike a large-scale Rattraying. Fear can make a person so very compliant.

7) Bill glamoured the old woman in Jackson, gave her money, and left. We were shown that she was still alive after he left.

There’s a theory (first proposed by people far cleverer than me) that True Blood relies heavily on the technique of Unreliable Narrator, sometimes involving just a slightly skewed perspective, but also times when what is shown is patently false (almost always involving Bill, as he is the Liar and Corrupter). In essence, the audience is getting glamoured, and there are little tells that the audience must pick up on, clues that shenanigans are afoot. There is actually a great deal of merit to this theory.

Anyway, the second scene with Olivia is usually considered one of those Glamour Scenes, and the she is actually dead. For many reason, but the kicker for me is the feet. In the first scene with her, Bill’s feet are shown stalking up to her. Woo once said that feet shots=villains/badness afoot/nothing good approaches.

Though pbt1 did point out that they know that these crimes have yet to be revealed, so I’m not sure why you felt the need to ‘inform’ them of what happened. They’re aware of it. What they were saying is they felt there was more to the story then that. Simply repeating the story to them is not helpful, and is a little condescending.