#HE WANTS LOUIS TO COME TO HIM

[vampirenicotine]

LYRIC VIDEO IS OUT AND I’M SCREAMING THE LOUIS DISS TRACK OF ALL TIME

“gimme some face a souvenir” PARALLELED to “he did me some face and then i drove him home” in 1x3

….. he really said louis suck my dick.

[platoapproved]

louis + cruelty

[casualavocados]

How's that possible? Since when did you start eating spicy food? I told you I'd do it for real next time. ...Don't touch me, or—I'll kill you!

KISEKI: DEAR TO ME Ep. 12

[charlie-rulerofhell]

Pick up the pace, pack up the gear Gimme some face, a souvenir Here come the gays, here comes the fear Now we're having fun

[kindaorangey]

"are you asking me or making me?" is soooooo interesting to me because i think armand only asks it when he can't gauge whether he's letting louis down. it's barely even sexual - it's a hail mary. it's a show of trust, indirectly admitting that he wants to do something other than what louis expects of him, but that he's willing to obey louis anyway, for the sake of their relationship. it's sort of heartbreaking watching them at the sacré-cœur, because if louis had said "i'm making you" armand would've done it in a heartbeat. he would've taken it as a show of committment on louis' part, and he wouldn't have betrayed him. but louis takes the question just as an expression of disagreement, and so he doesn't play the game. ironically, he respects armand's independence too much to make him turn madeleine if he doesn't want to. and so armand isn't convinced of louis' commitment to him, and he betrays him.

and by the time we see them in san fransisco, louis knows what the question means now, and answers "no, arun, i'm not asking" without question. and armand accepts it without complaint, even as it pains him. companionship really is the most important thing in the world to armand, just like it is for lestat, and he's willing to do any number of horrible things to louis and himself just to keep him as a companion, just like lestat. louis' biggest mistake is not realising how to use that to his advantage sooner.

edit: HELP people are reblogging this again. i misremembered the context of the scene - louis is asking armand to witness the turning, not do it himself. still, if armand had gone along to witness, that would have 100% been taken as implicit permission for louis to turn madeleine (thereby adhering to the first of the great laws) and, in essence, "agreeing" with her turning where before he ordered claudia to drive madeleine out of town. this hypocrisy, and the further bending of the rules for louis' sake (he's given permission to turn a mortal despite neither of them being in the coven), would have been seen by the coven as betrayal. armand knows this; he doesn't think madeleiene should be turned for these reasons; that's why he asks, "are you asking me or making me?"

still. if louis had said "i'm making you" i think armand would've gone along to witness, implicitly giving his permission for madeleine to be turned and functionally changing his allegiance from the coven to louis once and for all. so the core point of the post still stands.

[fayevalcntine]

This is what it feels like reading some people's IWTV takes

[delicatepointofview]

gonna have to deal with people missing the point of louis singing 1d songs in festivals... don't get me started on the other covers

[statementlou]

Tbh i am not surprised that a person who openly talked about having drinking problems since 1d days, because of how crazy 1d worked has been agressive. What surprises me is people being surprised (they never seriously saw drunk person?). But i am also confused about this whole book. Apparently Maya said that that book is not fully bout Liam but compilation about her exes and some of the worst parts are not about him. But recently she said that the book is “ofc about him” so what is true then? Or did she meant it that ofc some parts are about him or that whole book is about him?

Sorry, just confused

I also am not surprised- we've learned so much more about the real stories of things and about the guys' actual lives over the last years, and the story that has unfolded around Liam has been totally consistent throughout if you've been following it, and so the information Maya is telling us is shocking and upsetting but not difficult to believe. I got an anon yesterday saying they were worried about getting similar revelations about the other boys, like "if Liam could be doing this we just don't know, any of them could", and while in a way that's always true I guess, anyone could be doing anything in private like... that doesn't really concern me. Because none of these Liam revelations are coming out of nowhere, there have been many MANY steps along the way leading us here if you've been watching, and he has talked openly about both his mental health struggles and his addiction issues. So to answer that anon... to find out something similar about Louis would in contrast contradict everything we know about him and no I'm not worried about it. Is he an abuser or a loose cannon, well that news would truly shock me to my core, I will be honest. But anyway as for the book I don't find it strange that she was nervous when it came out and treading lightly and later decided, fuck it. In the absolutely on point tiktok she dropped today (YES👏GIRL👏FUCKING TELL THEM👏) she even mentions attempts to keep her from publishing the book, presumably by Liam's team, that I am riveted by and cannot WAIT to hear more details about actually- like I said I don't find it at all strange that she was nervous and downplayed it a bit then. But if she says now that it's just about Liam, well, I would say it's been clear from the beginning that the book is their story. Maya herself brought up the parallel of songs being written about stuff and I think it's the same thing; it's true (she was in an abusive relationship that involved certain kinds of events) but maybe not 100% literal (I'm sure details were changed to make the story work, it's not like a word for word timeline of their interactions or whatever).

[holyshit]

.

[ryuusea]

Too much sweets. More sherliam modern au doodles.

You know, I don’t think I’ve actually ever had Swedish Fish, but I’ve had shark shaped gummies.

Also included the WIP of the close up shot of Sherly and Liam leaning in together because I’m fond of it. I like the tension I was able to show there. 🤭

[louisdulacblog]

I find it continuously hilarious in Fics where they narrate in Louis' POV about how he's attracted to Lestat even though white men aren't his preferred/usual type when in the motherfucking PILOT episode before we even meet Lestat we have this fuckery of scene:

This man was down to ride any dick I fear.

[limonjarritos]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU GUYS DON'T LIKE HARU?! Who else does it like her?

[tiptoethewordsgo]

as someone who has despised lestat since episode 1 watching interview with the vampire is actual torture . like obviously i love the show but every-time he’s on screen saying some bullshit (every episode) i have to resist the urge to shoot myself . can this freak just die already

[casualavocados]

#he doesn't want to fight with you ai di, he wants to Kiss🙄💘🥺

Nat Chen as CHEN YI KISEKI: DEAR TO ME (2023)

[pynkhues]

I’m confused by what you mean when you say that Lestat was “cast out of the house” after the drop in 1.05, as this is not what the show tells us. Lestat left of his own will — he wasn’t thrown out. He beat Louis half to death and then ran away, as evidenced here — “Lestat had disappeared after that awful night. Vanished out of a profound sense of shame he would later confess to” (Louis, 1.06). Louis was in no fit state to throw anyone out of anywhere: as mentioned previously, Lestat had just beaten him half to death.

Apologies if I’m misinterpreting, but in instances like this you seem to paint Lestat as a somewhat of a victim — poor Lestat, banished from his house by his uncaring, domineering husband — when in actuality he was anything but a victim. He was the aggressor, the perpetrator of horrific intimate partner violence, and so to twist the narrative to imply that he was hard done to leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. 

Another instance of this is in your Byronic Hero post, where you suggest that Louis “decides when Lestat gets to live at Rue Royale”, in reference to him being “one of the monsters who’s controlling the household”. We’re talking about someone that has just spent months recovering from a brutal attack by their partner; Lestat chooses to not return because he is ashamed and he knows that Louis has not forgiven him. Louis is not forcing anything on him — and he certainly doesn’t have the power to keep Lestat from RR.

Can you understand why assertions like these are problematic? I understand you wanting to explore the push-pull power dynamic between L&L, but in doing so you seem to be missing the essential through-line in 1.06, which is that Louis and Claudia cannot leave while Lestat lives. Any power they may have once held is overshadowed by Lestat’s absolute control of the household, so to place Louis on level with Lestat as “one of the monsters controlling the household” is at best misguided, and at worst displays an unsettling disregard for victims of IPV. 

(x)

I mean, with all due respect, anon, you're responding to a series of tags I wrote last night that I specifically said I would later clarify and better articulate, so I'm not surprised you're confused and yes, you are misinterpreting me (again, I suspect, as I think you may have sent me asks like this before). I've been clear for months now that the drop is a singular act of violence on this show, and it's not one that I'd ever diminish or underwrite, and as a result, this feels like a pretty bad faith read of something I've both spoken about already and explicitly said I would be talking about again soon. Instead of paying me the respect I extend to all of you by giving me the time to reply in the way I've signalled I would, you've used my tags to make assumptions about what I will say and frankly made some pretty unkind accusations as to my character.

It takes me time and energy to write up replies, particularly replies on this sort of topic that require greater attunement, sensitivity and nuance than others. It's something I do for free, and at the sacrifice of other things in my life, and it's something I do with my name attached, unlike anons. And look, I enjoy doing it - I do - but if you follow me, you should know that my sister - a survivor of recent IPV and her two small children are currently staying with me, after I was a witness in her courtcase against her ex-husband in October - real people, not fictional characters - something I've also been open about, and so you telling me that I have an 'unsettling disregard for victims of IPV' feels like a particularly cruel thing to say to me right now.

I will answer the other anon's ask, as I said that I would, but I'll do it in my own time, and in the meantime, I'd ask that you perhaps don't put words in my mouth or mount arguments to things you yourself say you are confused about or feel you could be misinterpreting. I'll clarify, again, as I said that I would.

[lgbtiwtv]

hey. hey. i really miss louis de pointe du lac. you get it. you understand.