A review of Laurell K. Hamilton’s ‘Bloody Bones’ chapter seventeen

It’s another long chapter today, which is a double edged sword. I like that Hamilton has stopped dicking about with her chapter lengths, but it’ll make the review longer.

It was after 2:00 A.M. before we got back to the graveyard. The Feds had kept us forever, like they didn’t believe we were telling them the whole truth. Fancy that. I hated being accused of concealing evidence when I wasn’t. Made me want to lie to them just so they wouldn’t be disappointed. I think Freemont had painted a less than charitable picture of me. That’ll teach me to be generous. But it seemed petty to point fingers at each other, and say she did it, when Beth St. John’s blood.

Anita, you’re three years older than me. Why are you such a child? ‘Oh people doing their job waaahhh Freemont tells the truth waaahhhh no one believed my lies waaaaahhhh’.

Anita is back with Mister Stirling at the Bouvier cemetery, ready to raise the dead – well, I think. It’s been such a long time that I’m not sure whether I remember or care any more now there’s a potential vampire child molester running around kidnapping/murdering young boys. Although I am glad Anita is not involved in the investigation currently.

She complains that Stirling is making her work, that killing vampires doesn’t pay her, and waaah waaah waaahhh my toys fell out of my pram waaaah people are mean waaahhhh. I just can’t make myself care.

Ms. Harrison stumbled, and only Bayard’s grab on her elbow kept her from falling flat on her butt. She was still wearing her heels. Maybe it was against the executive secretary code to wear tennis shoes.

Says the woman who wore a bright red mini skirt to a brutal murder scene.

Anita then thinks about Jeff possibly being raped and how God doesn’t always save people. No, but the police do if you tell them if your potential vampire rapist told you that there’s a vampire in the area who likes abusing teenage boys.

Anita tells Stirling to do some stupid things, he counters. I hate this book and yet it may be my favourite in the series so far because like all the secondary characters are taking the time to talk back to Anita and not accept her shit as gospel.

“All right, Ms. Blake. Do your job, but know this. You have been decidedly unpleasant. It had better been spectacular.”


Let us add Stirling into the wonderful Freetie ship. We can call it… Shirt’n’Tie.

Lawrence worries about how Anita is feeling and she tells him about the vampire molester. Lawrence cracks that it breaks the rule ‘that you can only be one kind of monster at a time’. AHAHAHA AHAHAHA AHAHAAHA child abuse is funny and jokes ought to be made about it.

I cannot say more emphatically how much it disgusts me that Anita and Lawrence crack jokes about the potential for a vampire paedophile. My music teacher as a child was a paedophile. The idea of molestation as a source of humour turns my stomach. (I was not abused by the teacher. I add this because I do not want it to be taken to mean that I was sexually abused – and this has in turn impacted my sexuality – and that I think it would be wrong for people to think of me as a victim, when there are many silent victims in the world who need our help and support)

Anyway, Anita is going to do something super sphesul necromancer bullshit called ‘reading the dead’. She then goes on about how she always knew she had an affinity for the dead and how she could always tell the soul had fled the body. Shame that it’s been implied that Anita didn’t know about her deadly powers until that wicked Mexican grandmother turned up. She apparently saw the soul of her great aunt at the aunt’s funeral. The aunt’s name was Katherine and it’s Anita’s middle name. Anita K. Blake. Laurell K. Hamilton. Huh.

There’s talk of souls that is very tedious and just feels like forced exposition so Anita can espouse how amazing she is at sensing souls. waaaah waaaah waaaaah poor spushul snowflake.

Anita stands around and talks about wind. She talks about it for two pages. The plot is driven to a painful halt. Anita is making wind and says she will touch the dead.  She talks about soil and skeletons. Then some ghosts appear which is meant to be amazing. Magnus Bouvier shows up. Someone has a gun and threatens to shoot Magnus. Anita says that she is not going to watch someone get shot for trespass. Says the woman who murdered a man just to make a point. The guy with the gun listens to Anita, not his boss who told him to shoot Magnus. Anita then says that this was all a big plan to draw Magnus here. I think Stirling leaves. Magnus does some magic and implies that Lawrence is a speshul snowflake of his own. Isn’t that wizard.

Magnus says they shouldn’t raise the dead on this mountain. Well, fuck you, is Anita’s reaction and points a gun at him. She asks him, a fairy, why he uses fairy magic. Magnus asks her if she really thinks he’s the murderer. No, she thinks some nutjob vampire did it.

Anita tells Magnus to put his hands on his head so she can shoot him better. Wait, didn’t you just yell at someone trying to do that? She’s only got silver bullets, no iron (PRECIOUS PRECIOUS IRON WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE ON YOU AS A GIVEN ANITA), and Magnus says ‘STFU BITCH’ and vanishes.

Anita ponders the ghosts, saying that they’re at least three hundred years old, more than Stirling told her. She forgets that Magnus told her the Bouviers have been living here for three hundred years. She then talks about Native Americans being potentially buried in the area, but calls them ‘Indians’ and goes on about how non-European they are.

This was an unpleasant chapter, but here’s a quote from LKH that makes me just laugh and laugh over and over in a kind of malicious trance.

“I took a lot of history in high school, and again read more than my share on my own.  I think my knowledge of what has really happened in the past, helped give my vampires and their society a realistic feel.”



8 thoughts on “A review of Laurell K. Hamilton’s ‘Bloody Bones’ chapter seventeen

  1. ” Made me want to lie to them just so they wouldn’t be disappointed.” Wow.

    “Anita, you’re three years older than me. Why are you such a child?” She gets worse when she’s thirty.

    and oh god no, no, her history is routinely fail and the way her vampire organize frequently makes no sense



    • I was reading interviews with her and she kept going on about how much research she does and how many books she has and I just had to stop and go away because I couldn’t take it any more. The bullshit was making me laugh too much.

  2. “A lot of history”.
    I… just…
    I can’t.
    I bet she’s they type to wander into philosophy clubs off the street and say “but WHAT IF the colours *I* see aren’t the colours *YOU* see,” and waits for the applause.

    • ‘Have you ever thought that you are unable to ever see your own face and can only see a reflection of your face?’

      I was reading interviews with her and I… there is nothing she says that doesn’t make me want to smash things with hammers.

  3. I am gonna assume that by ‘read a lot of history’, she means she literally read the word ‘history’ a lot of times.

    • It’s… so insulting. I’m a historian. It’s not a case of just opening a book and reading ‘some history’.

      Which time period? Which era? Which country? What themes is she interested in – politics – both high and popular, finance and economics, social history, gender, culture, religion, technology, farming, war? Is she researching anything specialised – like the history of domestic service and the changes therein from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, the Jewish ghettos of the sixteenth century in the Mediterranean, the use of print in early America from 1600 – 1620? What is the historiography of the subject studied? What are the movements of study within the subject – is it Whiggish, revisionist, post revisionist, feminist, Marxist? What are the critiques of the work read? Are there any major failings in their research, is it teleological, has it internal evaluated the work done? What have other people said about the subject? Are there opposing factions of theory? And, finally, does it appeal to you?

      History is complicated. Very complicated.

  4. Gru, I hate to do this…
    Magnus says “There have been Bouviers here for 300 years.” It looks to me like he’s specifically addressing French colonization of the Branson area, in which case LKH is right with the 300 year figure. The Mississippi watershed was first explored and mapped by the French in 1673. St Louis, Missouri was founded by the French in the mid-1690’s. The Branson, Missouri area, where Bloody Bones takes place, was settled sometime after that, although it wasn’t formally incorporated as a town until 1912.

    That didn’t actually hurt, but I think I need to go have a lie down.

    • Thanks for the info – historical accuracy always makes me happy. As LKH was talking about the Bouviers being there before other colonists, I’d presumed the settlement would have to be pre seventeenth century. I know little of the individual colonial histories within the US, so this was great to read about.

      Praise the history, not the author. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s