I'm a fan of Eric, especially in this Hamlet subplot, but I can't understand one thing:Solauren wrote:I think Eric is going to goad and bait Russel into doing something stupid. Then, when the authority comes down on him, Eric dumbs it all on him. "yeah, he was the one behind the Vampire Blood sales, he also blackmailed my queen, kidnapped random humans, and killed several of his own kind, including the Magister."
Russel gets nailed to the wall (possibly by Eric himself), and Eric comes out as the hero and gains alot of political influence. He can also stop selling 'V' (or no one would suspect him of doing it anyway), and his Queen is now in the clear and owes him big-time, especially if she ends up inheriting Russels 'estate'.
Ultimate revenge for Eric. Russel took away everything he and his father had (Eric's dad was a king, after all), and now he does the same.
Why kill Talbot?
The death of Russell's paramour at the hands of Eric satisfies the eye-for-an-eye level of revenge, but how is Eric going to truly bring down Russell? More importantly, besides revenge, what advantage does Eric gain from this move? Superficially it looks like he just went out of his way to enrage a vampire lord in the middle of said vampire lord's kingdom. He can't call down the Authority if he's dead, and Russell will more than likely destroy Pam as well, so Eric is gambling with the life of his progeny as well. All for what? The satisfaction of killing the man who killed his father's cleaning lady boyfriend?