#also does she think Lestat is truly dead by now?

[fayevalcntine]

I do find it a tad odd how Claudia and Louis knew they should only communicate telepathically while planning their murder, yet they're just regularly talking about how to lie over having murdered Lestat, in their apartment, while the coven members freely roam about outside and could easily overhear their conversation? Especially since obviously they couldn't just talk about murdering Lestat while living in the same house with him, but even then, Claudia knew he had a mole planted next to them and kept the entire plot to herself in order to mislead even Antoinette. She also knows how to spy on other vampires, like she did with Lestat and Louis, and still not be perceived while listening in on what they're doing. So why are they being very blase about talking over such a dangerous topic even after they know that Lestat is considered to be their co-founder, which would mean that they may likely get into trouble should anyone find out?

Unless this is supposed to be deliberate and a clue for the coven likely already knowing who their maker really is and what happened to him (which was also the case in the book), but I'm still surprised at Claudia not having considered this option.... Unless she's being very much in denial about the dangers of this because she's so desperate to form any community with these people.

[faithandfairies]

Interview with the Vampire Season 2 Rant

It's so interesting how season 2 is like watching a train wreck happening in slow motion.

Let me start by saying that Claudia tells Louis that he's once again choosing another vampire over her. But I feel like Louis is trying to do the opposite of that. Or at least he really doesn't start out trying to choose Armand.

The entirety of season 2 involves Louis trying to help Claudia make her dreams come true by following her lead, doing what she wants to do. For once he's choosing her.

None of what they end up doing is anything he cares about. He's a homebody who likes to read a good book by the fire while knowing his loved ones are safe and near. I mean, he asks Claudia early on whether they can go home now, when they don't find what they were looking for after 5 years of searching, right before Paris.

He doesn't know what home will entail, whether it will just be going home to New Orleans with Lestat dead or if Lestat will be there waiting for him, murderous or loving, but he doesn't care. Both options will do.

Him seeing Lestat is him trying to desperately reconnect with something he cares about, even if it is within his own memories, especially when his attempts at connecting with Claudia fall flat.

Claudia initially wants to leave Paris when they first arrive there but Paris is the first time Louis feels at home because Paris is the closest he's been to Lestat in years. So Louis wants to give it a chance.

I think on some level Louis expected Lestat to follow them, to come looking for them, so Louis could say he tried to pick Claudia over Lestat and Lestat wouldn't let him. The way he tends to place blame anywhere else than with himself. Even him going to Roger and Albert is about inquiring whether Lestat is truly dead, sure, but is also a siren song meant for Lestat in case he's alive I think. That if Lestat is alive he will hear from Roger that Louis is in Paris and show up. But then none of that happens.

Season 2 also involves a lot of everyone lying to themselves. Even Louis' relationship with Armand is him trying and failing to fix the mistakes he made in his relationship with Lestat with Armand as a stand-in for Lestat.

Armand is very obviously dangerous from the start. Even while he's crushing a bit on Louis he does not make it a secret that he wants Louis and Claudia dead.

Initially Louis makes the right call, he wants to leave Paris the moment he realizes Armand is a danger to them. But it would mean uprooting Claudia, forcing her to start over from a point of misery again. So then he approaches Armand the way he did Lestat.

He tries to solve the problem of Armand being a danger to them by trying to love him, love him into safety. He tries to go one step further than he ever did with Lestat, he tries to say it, say "I love you" but it doesn't ring true even to his own ears.

He forgets that loving Lestat was always his truth, incapable of being a manipulation, impossible to replicate as a lie.

Even Armand tries to love Louis, because the only thing better than killing Louis would be for Louis to fall in love with him more than he ever was with Lestat. To the point that if given the choice Louis would choose Armand because he loves him more than he ever did Lestat.

But Armand is not Lestat. Which means a lot of things. It means Louis and Claudia will never truly be safe with Armand simply because Louis and Claudia are not his. Lestat considered Louis and Claudia his, his family, his to take care of, his to protect. Armand does not feel the same way. But Armand not being Lestat also means Louis will never love Armand. Which only underlines that they will never be safe with Armand. Because aside from running or killing the coven, actually loving Armand more than Lestat was the one way Louis might have gotten Armand to not kill them.

And Louis can't do that. He shows Armand this too when he can't commit to Armand in the one essential way he did do to Lestat. He can't accept Armand as his companion. Because in his mind Lestat never stopped being his companion and to accept Armand as such would mean to give the role Lestat filled to Armand. At this point Armand is an affair. He cannot be Louis' companion because even considered dead, in Louis' heart of hearts, that position belongs to Lestat.

And yet when it turns out he and Claudia are still in danger from Armand and the coven Louis tries to do that anyway. He tries to banish Lestat's memory. He tries to force companionship with Armand even though he doesn't feel it. And that scene is so interesting because it's Louis lying to himself in its entirety. It seeming to be initially about him breaking up with Armand but instead it's him trying to let go of the memory of Lestat.

But what it's really about is him trying to let go of his humanity and once again becoming the cold and calculated pimp he used to be before he met Lestat, that needed to do what he needed to do to protect his family. It's funny to realize that by loving him Lestat unknowingly unearthed some of Louis' humanity that had previously been hidden away. Because in choosing to love Lestat Louis became more human. Lestat chose Louis in part because of the hardened pimp façade he threw up in order to cope with the work he had to do to take care of his family. But in loving Louis Lestat laid bare all of who Louis really was and while he thought he knew what he was doing I don't think he truly knew until after he had turned Louis and saw the true effects of him taking a wrecking ball to all of Louis' walls at the same time.

When Louis realizes that once again his family is in danger he does what he did all those years ago. He dusts off the pimp persona. He's about to give the performance of his life trying to make Armand believe he's in love with him so Armand doesn't kill them, all while locking his heart away with the memory of Lestat for safekeeping so that he can actually give a convincing performance.

But here's the thing, Lestat was the actor. Louis was never good at lying about how he really felt. It's also why distracting Lestat before he killed him was so effective. It was as easy as breathing because Louis didn't have to act. The love he felt for Lestat was the absolute truth and anything less than that would have been a lie Lestat would have seen straight through. Lestat may not have realized Louis loved him but unbeknownst to him he did know how it felt to be loved by Louis.

Louis can't deceive Armand the same way precisely because he doesn't have those particular feelings for Armand and up to then he was trying to use Armand as a Lestat stand-in, a do-over in which he tells Armand what Lestat needed to hear, in the hopes this time the outcome will be different. Which almost worked because he had Dreamstat to bring those real feelings to the surface. But then Louis locks Dreamstat away thinking that's the answer and no longer even has a whisper of the feeling he previously had to back up his words and actions. And by then it's already too late anyway.

[imogenkol]

— 10 CHARACTERS / 10 FANDOMS / 10 TAGS

Rules: List 10 of your favorite characters from 10 different fandoms and then tag 10 people!

tagged by @ladyyennefer and @simonxriley Thank you! 💕

tagging: @statichvm @adelaidedrubman @marivenah @kyber-infinitygems @cassietrn @jillvalentinesday @socially-awkward-skeleton @florbelles @chuckhansen @e-the-village-cryptid

Commander Lexa (The 100) — the love of my life, my number one from now until the end of time, deserved a far better ending and I will forever be bitter about it.

Ellie Williams (The Last of Us) — I would walk through fire for this character. I love her more than my own life.

Bix Caleen (Andor) — it was so hard to only pick one Star Wars character, but she really has a special place in my heart now. Also deserved better. Tony Gilroy I am in your fucking walls.

Arthur Morgan (Red Dead Redemption 2) — all I wanted to do was root and toot and yee and haw, but this game made me deeply love this man. I frequently cry about him.

Jessica Jones (Marvel) — she’s an absolute mess, she’s an asshole, but by god does she try.

Emma of Normandy (Vikings: Valhalla) — look, I’m usually strongly Team Viking in these shows, but her first scene made me switch sides in record time. I will also defend her actions in s2 with my full chest. I support women’s rights and women’s wrongs.

Senua (Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice) — I haven’t even played this game myself, but it completely altered my brain chemistry. Senua truly reached into my fucking soul. I cry when I think about her for more than a few minutes. “All she needed was a little help. A little hope.”

Villanelle (Killing Eve) — everything is wrong with her <3

Lestat de Lioncourt (Interview With The Vampire) — everything is wrong with him <3

Inej Ghafa (Six of Crows) — One of the most perseverant characters I’ve ever read. The end of her story is so beautiful and it makes me full on sob every single time without fail.

[lestatetlouis]

reading “thread”: the vampire lestat, part iv: chapter iv (pt. 3)

[AUUUUUU.mp4]

the whole “bird flying further away from the natural world and drifting into darkness” metaphor for the depression that nicki has is so on point. at its worst, it really feels like this, this is too relatable. when you’re in pitch black darkness you can’t really register anything.

and it’s something that lestat goes through existential dread and panic attacks with it, but so far he hasn’t been described as someone who has the same brand of depression as nicki. at least, there is somewhat of a distinction between lestat’s episode and what nicki goes through that seems way more chronic.

so he does have hints, from nicki opening up once about it to once he becomes a vampire and he can feel that there’s smth off with nicki - but most of it is a projection of the disease on nicki’s feelings towards lestat. still, he can’t really grasp it, so this is a one of a kind opportunity for someone who doesn’t have these issues to truly understand the complexity of it all, which is something us with depression also struggle with because we don’t want people to go through that, but we’d like them to actually know what it’s like to get us.

but because lestat had vastly underestimated all the signs, when he’s actually given the opportunity to step in nicki’s shoes he’s basically asking the world to stop because he needs to come off it.

i do wonder if gabrielle was able to keep track of the ordeal through nicki’s perspective of it, and thus at least “feel” how much in despair lestat was. i’m saying this because for once since her turning she actually puts herself back in the role of a mother and addresses him directly as her son, and the imaginary around her is also the one of a mother (the most famous mother of all time, i’d say).

to rephrase this: lestat says back in part i gabrielle was only capable of reaching him (even if in a distanced manner) as a mother when he was under severe pain or stress, so her being there for him, even if it’s to say it’s a disaster, but still commiserating and aware that her presence and her acknowledgement of their familial bond is the biggest support she could give is rooted in her awareness of lestat’s pain in this situation.

i get hints of upcoming jealousy - gabrielle is looking after nicki (kind of like you’d expect for a son?) and they have now the ability to talk to each other out of lestat’s reach. lestat looking them from afar while they move together feels like he now feels alienated from them both.

i do think the clothes are apt but not from the cleric pov, but from the “gabrielle is dressing him for his funeral lol” pov

on one hand, i get where lestat is coming from: nicki just unleashed Depression 2 on him, when he did so lestat probably understood how nicki actually felt about everything him included, and then stole his mom.

plus, this is consistent: when lestat found out his mother was physically dying, he spent a long time avoiding her. now, he finds out his bf is emotionally dead, and is also avoidant of him. like, lestat is good at this game, and nicki will now be forever a reminder of the pain of the vision, of course he would want to shake away that whichever way possible.

doesn’t not make it an L though, i guess.

and this is it for chapter 4! see you soon for chapter 5!

[rainbowcarousels]

Why yes I think about it ALL THE TIME and now you have me crying in the club on a Tuesday 😮‍💨 How they’d been each other’s rock for the longest time and the center of each other’s worlds, only to have it taken from them when they needed it the most. How their very foundations were ripped apart (again in Armand’s case). And I know this is verging into fanon territory given that we weren’t exactly given a solid explanation in the text but it’s also worth considering how much Armand’s near dead experience informed Daniel’s delirium and state of mind. Armand was everything Daniel knew and all of a sudden (and as far as he knew), he was gone. And Armand had his one baby, his only child, completely go off his rocker while he was unable to do anything about it, only further cementing his believe that if he ever loved anyone enough to bring them over, he’d fail. Anne was truly cruel for that, even though she made up for it in the end. We only got a few glimpses in the last trilogy, but they seemed at such ease with each other, with the same familiarity between them that’s always been there, that I’d like to think they’d already talked about their pressing issues at length (enough for Daniel to move in with him I mean), and all was well 🥹 xoxo DA

I know it's fanon but it just lines up so perfectly for Armand's death to be at the very least a tipping point for Daniel. We know Armand is not in a good place in Memnoch, he's not really taking care of himself, he's in a fragile state and this just screams post-break up to me. I think @desertfangs has them break up in London just prior to Memnoch and given that would align with what we hear of Armand haunting London in that time period, it feels like it should be canon so I'm counting it as my personal canon.

The thing is when it comes to Armand and Daniel, this would be what, less than a decade after Daniel was made? They're still figuring out how their relationship has changed and how to function in this new way or adapt things. I think you can see the shift even in QOTD where Armand wants to push himself into the teacher role as Marius and probably Santino had been for him and if you look at how he talks and treats Daniel right afterwards, you can see shades of his relationship with them both in his tone and actions as if he's trying to figure out what sort of teacher he is all the while thinking it's only a matter of time before he realises he got what he wanted, he'll leave and Daniel does leave.

I don't think that was the reason - I think communication between them decayed without the mental link between them where he found himself second guessing Daniel's words when Daniel's words are often at odds with his actual thoughts and Daniel had been so used to him knowing that and not having to explain himself that it was bound to cause a blow out - but I don't think it was meant to be a permenant break so much as playing into the pattern of running off for a bit. As a side note, it's also why I think Marius makes such a big thing of Armand being able to hear B&S: he knows how hard it hit him and Daniel to lose it.

I do think Daniel does still have this certain wide eyed delirium that probably comes from having very powerful blood so everything is overstimulating, a long overexposure to the blood as a mortal, being made under circumstances that were not the most stable and getting floored by Akasha all in his first week or so as a vampire. A need for some time apart was probably always going to be on the cards, I think Daniel needed to at least try to show he can survive without Armand even if he's struggling because survival seems to be the mark of a successful fledgling but then, as in a lot of VC, Lestat Happens and all hell breaks loose.

(I am fond of the idea that Lestat's last memory of Armand going as he was pulled away got screamed to the vampire populace and this was in fact the specific tipping point.)

So I think when we get to the point of Daniel's delerium being severe it's Grandpa to the rescue, it's a side effect of struggling with his own delirium and the loss and grief he's feeling so he just retreats into his own worlds he can set up and control and make them beautiful because the world out there feels like empty chaos and he's lost the person who guided him through the chaos (or so he thinks at the time) and at least part of his withdrawal from the world to do his lil crafts was done deliberately to get away from his grief. It's just that once he's done that, it's a lot harder to find his way back again.

And I feel like this is the crux of the Armand issue: from what we know in TVA, I genuinely do not believe he knows Daniel's not really doing well and I do think it's something he learns later so I think there's this swing between 'Daniel wasn't here when I felt broken and I had to pick myself up but I'm his maker, he doesn't have to take care of me, it's his perogative to stay away if he can't stand me any longer' to 'Daniel needed rescuing and he's always been the one to do that, he'd always been the person taking care of him and he'd have tried if he knew, would have dropped everything in a moment to do it' but by then, Marius had stepped in, they were settled, he wasn't going to throw that out and for better or worse, he knows Marius can be devoted to caring for broken boys and seeing them get back up again.

But none of that logical line of thought shakes the fact there is a chunk of his life, especially once they get back together, that Armand had no connection with other than being part of the breaking point much as I think Daniel leaving was part of his. There's these big things that happened and while yes, I hope they talked about it, it's not the same as experiencing it and I think when they're ready to show that in the blood, to share that level of pain and deal with it as a shared sadness and experience, it'll be agony but they'll come away with a stronger relationship for it.

It just won't change the fact that he had a second chance to do it right this time with Daniel where he had failed before, to not be a blunt object seeking practical solutions and prove he can in fact take care of people without destroying them. He does still get this in Benji and Sybelle to a degree, but I think the fact he didn't get it with Daniel probably weighs on him and he can't help but call it back to his own feelings of abandonment as well as what happened with Nicki and even Claudia. He's trying so hard in the modern age to make caregiver be a huge part of him and to be seen as somene who keeps his children safe and even if Daniel was safe at the time, I can't help but think it would bother him that his own firstborn had to be cared for by someone else and that maybe Lestat would be the only person he would really admit this to because he would be the one to understand it. That it was love, not the lack of.

Sorry for the sudden essay DA, it turns out Armand is not the only one with a lot of feelings on the matter!

[louisbutalsolestat]

(This is only a theory by the way)

Why Louis is smarter then you think.

Okay Let me first start by saying suicide is never the answer.

Okay I wanted to start in this scene because I don’t think it gets enough credit. We see Paul ask Louis if Levi loves Grace enough, with all of him. Then he ask if Louis going to see Lestat again. Louis say no. Paul says good because he deserves better. Really, I feel like Paul thought “Why can’t I let my siblings be happy. Why was he so mad about Grace marrying Levi? Because of His religion, right. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t want his siblings to be happy. He think if God love them. Why would he not want them happy. He probably feels like he’s a burden because he’s in the way of their happiness.” So by doing this he can allow Louis to be Free to be who he wants.

However, this actually has the opposite effect. Because Now their mother is hurting, She think her son dead because Louis told him was he’s gay. It’s not true, but that’s how she feels. Grace doesn’t like it either but she loves Louis. She thought if she show Louis she still loved him maybe he can fix what’s broken. But she doesn’t accept what Louis is. 

There Lestat, he loved Louis so much he wanted to free him too. However, none of the people that love him truly understand. He loves who he is. He loves being black. And he didn’t want anything in life to change and he really loves life. He loves it so much. It hurts him. He tried to be a Vampire. But he doesn’t want to kill people. And going to honest, I don’t really like this.  Show writers why when does Louis kills. Why is it always white man? But he doesn’t want to kill them.

When he starts to see the error of his ways in  episode 3. What he really wants is someone to connect to. His own people, Claudia. Claudia, this is not just a connection to being a father and having a family. She’s also a connection to his black roots. He Love lestat, but Lestat can’t understand this part of him. But Claudia can, Louis thought by making her. He would have someone he can share this part of his life with. It would end the fighting between Lestat and him. Because he won’t have to try and make Lestat understand him. A Band-Aid, it would free them to just love each other. Lestat agree to this, But! Louis had to be responsible for Claudius actions. Lestat didn’t step in episode five, when the cops were there.

Was it because he couldn’t? It  possible. Louis could have drink he blood and Lestat didn’t have the energy. Lestat could have not fed yet. didn’t have the energy. Or he could have refused to clean up Louis mess again. Yes I actually love the Claudia character. However, I do know that this character is a lot of work. And causes a lot of trouble for them.  she’s not really controllable. I think she knows what he did it for too. But she need Louis to survive. But I think she hates Louis as much as she hated Lestat.

Antoinette, throughout most of the series she’s human. She’s very annoying. However she’s human. Which means Louis has the ability to read her thoughts. When she was a live she was actually beneficial to Louis as well. He can Keep an eye on Lestat and know where he is and what doing,all the time. Why kill her? I think Antoinette should have realize this and walked away. but she wanted the power, she wanted to be a Vampire. Which means you have to realize when Claudia brought her up. Louis already knew about her. Know that Lestat didn’t plan to kill her. But he could use her while she was still human. He never cared that she was there only that she was human. We actually got a little bit of this in episode four on the boat. Claudia asked about Lestat and other women. Louis said he’s just an elaborate hunter. He was lying to himself, but Lestat  probably also told him this lie. When Louis asked about Antoinette.

The ending of episode six change that. Lestat turned Antoinnette into a vampire. We saw in one the shots at the end of episode seven that Antoinnette was standing behind the tree, watching Claudia and Louis when Claudia tried to leave. When she should up. Claudius stood up and tried to speak mandarin. Louis understood her but said that he didn’t said that he was too dumb. Play the innocent black man, for Antoinette. 

But we saw the house full of books when it was just Lestat and Louis for seven years. The truth is he reads a lot and he’s very smart. So why play dumb?  when We first meet Louis. He has a Louisiana accent. After the first five years with Lestat that’s gone.  I think that the write are genius in this, because when talking to Grace, he remembers to say words like “situation” wrong. But that’s just to keep up appearances because later, when talking to us Lestat his accent is gone. However, he also tries to keep his accent with Claudia. Why is this? To keep her connected to her black root?

Louis said he was going to end his life then. Let Lestat live with that and that bitch Antoinette. However, he wouldn’t do it on the night that Claudia left. There was Lestat advantage, he thought, as long as Claudius here Louis wouldn’t do it. And he’s was right. But this was a dangerous game. One that Louis had to very reluctantly win, and he did. But he didn’t want to kill Lestat. He loves him. He just wants to be free.

I still think Louis end game. Lestat will do everything he need to do to prove to Louis Love that he deserves love. But Louis need to grow to. Had to realize that. Lestat is just like him. And Lestat was just trying to show him what his life should be. What he could be if he want it. 

I know this isn’t what I promised. But this is my theory in part. Louis could still have the ability to see Lestat thought. Who knows but RJ and Antoinette. 

I think I know the answer to one of my earlier questions. Why does Louis kill only white man? Maybe because he really wishes he could be white. 

(Add-on) Also if you think Louis has a problems using women. You are very wrong. Remember that he’s a former pimp. Pimp Louis would use women and do easily and still sleep at night.

I still Love this character 🥰





[savagewildnerness]

I don’t mean to be dramatic, but that IS Lestat, isn’t it!?! And I just did a little cry at 7:15am.

I say I have faith in Rolin/the writers, but there truly was a part of me who thought “Well, perhaps they *are* going to just take this storyline & give it to Louis & Lestat instead of how it is in the books. It’s true that Lestat does desire to be loved, after all.

But they’re going to give us the beautiful story from the books, aren’t they! They’re going to do it. Not to say she would have adored it as we cannot see inside the mind of another human unless they wish to share it, but oh how these few seconds made me *wish* Anne Rice was still alive to be able to experience her show brought to life this way.

Despite always loving The Vampire Chronicles, I can’t say I often felt too much towards Anne. Obviously I subscribed to her website & followed her on Twitter. I often wished I could have gone to The Vampire Ball! But I’m just a wee girl in the U.K. & oddly, most of my real-life friends don’t even like fantasy as a genre. The idea of ever being there was a world away from me. But I think were I 14 now & getting into the VC via the TV show, I might feel an urge to write to her or connect to her… but, I suppose I always felt a Lestattiness from Anne in terms of self-confidence - which in Lestat is amusing, but in Anne, maybe distanced me from her: me being very quiet and un-self confident.

But we must remember that for all Lestat’s external forthright-ness & bravura: he is not like that inside. Internally, I have always felt near Lestat’s twin, and…

Interview (2016):

“Lestat sprang to life in the corner of my eye, an antagonist of tremendous seductive power, who truly did take on a life of his own as I was focusing on Louis and his tragic tale in "Interview With the Vampire."

By the time the book ended, I had it in my mind that Lestat would have an entirely different interpretation of events and maybe someday I could explore that. But eight years passed before I did.

Lestat was very much based on my husband, Stan, on Stan's physicality — Stan being a lithe, athletic man of great strength and self-confidence and also an atheist who shook his fist at the stars.

But Lestat really became Lestat. And you could say, by the time the second book was finished, Lestat was me.”

So, internally, I can fully imagine Anne as Lestat. I can see her sometimes strong external opinions could come from a place of internal fragility, as Lestat’s do.

And I feel so certain this exquisitely beautiful adaption (which, it seems is only going to become increasingly faithful to the books) would have split Anne’s heart apart; just as it does mine? 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

I don’t know why I made this post so much about Anne Rice. It just is making me yearn so deeply for her to have been able to watch this beautiful show. I wish she was still here, that she could. I hope you know the beauty Anne: if you exist in some form still (I don’t personally believe we do when we’re dead, but I’ll still wish you could *know*.)

src

[monstersinthecosmos]

... not to mention that most beloved trope, a girl or woman having to go through SA in order to grow, mature, "toughen up", and ultimately decide home wasn't so bad after all! The only option! No other way possible!! asdlfgkh ... Daniel Bogosian x Rashid for healthiest relationship in the series so far, which is both Rude and Wonderful, lol I'm fine

Right I'm just, really. Like.

Here's what I've been trying to say, and because No Negativity Allowed on Tumblr it's been tricky to navigate because suddenly I'm a loser book purist (?) and a "BOOMER" (lmfao??) but this is the thing when you make an adaptation that you need to be ready to defend:

Does this change make the story better?

If any random person turns this show on and doesn't know any better, cool! Enjoy! But it's *worth* asking what RJ is trying to say about women, and being queer, and being Black. And if some of these decisions are shaping up to be lazy, sketchy, harmful, etc, that's *worth* talking about.

And there's a CONTEXT here when it comes to Claudia, and the changes they've made. We lost a really excellent feminist character for this. And like, I've been saying the whole time, I understand if they didn't want to cast a small child for logistic purposes, but they haven't written a new character that has nearly the same care. Claudia on the show so far is just a bunch of sexist stereotypes about teenagers in a big trenchcoat, and to have her raped on top of that, is just. Beyond the pale.

It doesn't matter if a 14 year old still a "child" and it doesn't matter if we're all supposed to suspend disbelief a little bit to pretend Bailey doesn't look like she's 19. The show has gone out of its way to let us know that she can drive and she can blend in at college. This is a completely different set of struggles than a small child would have in navigating the world and the conflict is just, not there. The conflict they gave her is that she gets raped when she leaves home, and I just can't even begin to unpack it.

But BECAUSE she isn't a convincing child, it's introducing so many bad messages about. .. petite women? You aren't a real woman if you don't have tits? Only perverts will like you? .... cool.

Don't get me started on how the idea that she'd be hormonal for eternity is so fucking disgusting and stupid like she's dead bro why is she hormonal and why do you think teenage girls are fucking werewolves or whatever this is so gross but i'm already talking too much don't let me get into it now LOL

Plus like, don't get me started on all the smug meta moments breaking the fourth wall like Daniel acknowledging the story; it was bad enough that the show burns the tapes as if to say the novel is stupid (which is what RJ is telling us) but now we're raping Anne's fucking daughter. Cool!

It truly fucking baffles me that a show in 2022 is still leaning into this trope about SA, especially when we see that it affects the OTHER MEN in the show more than it affects Claudia herself. Daniel uses it as leverage for the story he's trying to tell. Louis (someone?) tore the pages out. If Louis is the one who removed the pages, he did that for his own needs. He altered Claudia's story because it makes *him* uncomfortable. It's painful for *him*. Louis waits around in squalor on Rue Royale for Claudia to get raped and come home to save him.

And the thing that's just, so fucking gross, is that they've given us enough information to know Claudia was abused already in her life as a mortal. Her response to recognizing Lestat as an abuser and sticking up to him does not need to be at the expense of raping her.

Also like, the entire reason that writing SA and violence against women is sensitive is because it's so likely the audience has experienced it. That's the entire conversation. We've had this conversation over and over and over. I wouldn't care about the lack of a CW if the show had NONE AT ALL but the fact that they put one in Ep1 for Paul but not for this is just really telling about the lack of care and sensitivity for this topic. And especially when they KNOW a huge portion of the fanbase is women and queer people.

I've been trying not to be such a raging misandrist LMAO but so many choices on the show for the past year and the way RJ and Alan Taylor talk about it kept sounding like IT WOULD BE SO COOL IF WE MADE IWTV BUT FOR MEN BC MEN DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TV TO WATCH and this really just hammered it home for me lol

BUT ALSO IT'S JUST. THE SHOW INVENTED THIS AREA OF DRAMA. Like the show made a decision to have the vampires be literally sexual. What the fuck does Killer need to RAPE someone for, anyway?! Like why.. would a vampire.. need to do that. What. WHAT.

All the talk about aging up Claudia (or Armand) because the sexy stuff is too gross is like, they could've just as easily not made it sexy? Especially on a network show that can't show too much anyway. I understand the need for a visual in a visual medium but this also will go towards my feeling that the show is not actually showing us a lot of queer intimacy anyway. It's like they threw Sam's ass into the first episode for shock value to reel everyone in and where is the rest? Blood drinking, cuddling, kissing, casual intimacy?

It's just honestly so fucking, pathetically and stereotypically Hollywood Cishet Old Guy to view love this way. It's subtext if they don't literally fuck. It's not scary to be 14 forever if you don't get raped.

idk man it's just. Wow.

[honourablejester]

Ideas for Dragons (D&D)

Or rather, thoughts on characters-who-are-dragons-in-(sort of)-disguise. Assuming that all ancient dragons have the ‘change shape’ option, metallic or otherwise, because it’s more fun that way. Sprinkle secret dragons everywhere! Why not? Also, bit lenient on the alignment here.

White

Keywords:  feral, primal, vengeful, with long memories

Thoughts:  Whites in disguise will be independent forces in the world. The wilderness dragons. They’ll have personal goals and points of pride. They’ll be your lone ranger seeking vengeance against a hated enemy. Your fearsome druid seeking to drive out invaders from their pristine wildernesses. Or, perhaps, your barbarians, warrior kings and queens, carving out their own territories. Quite likely to only nominally be ‘in disguise’, unless they’re really trying not to draw attention to their weakness/enemy. The pirate/whaler queen based in an iceberg shanty town, the proud spear-fisher challenging strangers to beat her, the capable outlander in a western. Heh.

Gold

Keywords:  aloof, grim, reserved, dedicated foes of evil

Thoughts:  Weirdly, I’m kind of liking gold dragons for rogues? Spies and spymasters. ‘Rarely does a gold dragon in disguise reveal its true form’. What I’m getting here is that golds in disguise are professional about it. They go undercover to hunt out evil. I know golds are usually seen as paladin material, and they definitely work as weary knights, but I’m liking the lawful rogue here. Add in aloof, grim, and you’ve a lovely set up for the stoic spymaster sending people to live and die in tyrannical empires and evil cults, or the grim spy going in themselves. Golds are the dragons you meet when you’re chained in a dungeon, or the one you’re taken to meet when you escape.

Green

Keywords:  cunning, manipulative, ambitious, intelligent

Thoughts: I’m guessing it’s the association with envy that makes green always the cunning ambitious colour, but hey, we’ll work with it. Greens in disguise are your wizards, your courtiers, your merchant princes, your ‘legitimate businessmen’. Your Petyr Baelishes. Anyone in a position to pull strings and topple dominos and thrive on chaos. La Voisin. The courtesan, the poisoner, the palace physician. Also, greens feel like they’d have multiple disguises on the go at once. What people think are four separate NPCs are actually one, and she’s gently wheeling five or six factions into her grasp, for good or for ill. Honestly, greens are great.

Copper

Keywords: cautious, tricksy, miserly, hospitable

Thoughts:  Couple of directions coppers can go, depending on whether this is a whim or if they have an enemy. They’ll either be the once-off, amusing-to-aggravating encounter, enough to tweak some noses and teach some lessons, in which case they’ll be much louder and more cheerful about things, OR they’ll be in much deeper cover and likely covering a long game with humour and a more subtle disguise. Bards and rogues. They can play spies as well as greens and golds. But I like the hospitality as a defining feature. A copper undercover as the most dangerous gang lord you ever saw will still have impeccable manners. (Coppers are basically fey)

Blue

Keywords:  dramatic, patient, methodical, vain

Thoughts:  Aristocrats to the core. Blues strike me as basically vampires? Lestat de Lioncourt. Patient, fond of the high life, dramatic as a thunderstorm when riled. When you look at a blue, you know there’s something off, something predatory, but not exactly what. Blues will be regal, noble, well-connected. Smart about alliances. Like whites, they’ll have a list of people who’ve ticked them off, and they’ll take their time returning the favour, but unlike whites blues will be indirect about it. Ambush predators, and dramatic ones. They’ll set up something truly notable. Patient and dramatic. The worst sort of enemies. But excellent friends if pointed at mutual foes.

Silver

Keywords: friendly, benign, fond of history, prone to attachment

Thoughts:  Innkeepers. Back alley healers (the ‘helping the poor for free’ kind, not the ‘shady as hell’ kind, though you never know). The uncle or auntie in the village that everyone knows and no one is entirely sure of the age of. The lovely, nice, friendly old lady who would never hurt a fly but wicked people who come to the village tend to walk away rather thoughtful after sitting down to tea. Or, you know, don’t walk away at all. The librarians, teachers, bakers, healers. The most normal-seeming, right in the thick of it, but often slightly forgetful when it comes to how long their ‘disguises’ are supposed to be able to stay alive. Ah. Oops?

Black

Keywords: paranoid, brutal, survivalist, ‘do unto others before they do unto you’

Thoughts:  Guerrilla warlords. We’re back out in the wilderness. Run and hide and strike where your enemies are weakest. Disguise yourself to find out where they’re weakest, who is your enemy now and who will be your enemy later. Rebels and outlaws. I like the link to crumbled civilisations. If you want a more ambiguous black, you can have them championing a dead kingdom against a foreign invader (for given values of ‘foreign’ depending on how many centuries on this is). Blacks are your outlanders, unwilling to accept any dominion but their own, hardened and vicious when maintaining their independence, paranoid about where the strike will come. Blacks are hard-edged, the allies you really need to work to keep good, the enemies you need to hit hard and hit now.

Bronze

Keywords: daring, warlike, nautical, rebels in search of a cause

Thoughts:  Well. Rebels, to start with. Again. Consulting heroes. Les Amis from Les Miserables. Odysseus. Though bronzes can be patient and like to be fully sure who’s done what and when and why before they start swinging, they really don’t hesitate from that point. So, like whites, often they’ll only nominally be ‘disguised’. They’ll be bold and daring and in-your-face, unless they’re actively on a mission that needs secrecy. I feel like they tend to use whatever form is most useful for the moment, and don’t tend as much towards long-term covers. They’re good students of history, though, and effective at what they do. If a bronze is well-established, they’ll be a respected leader.

Red

Keywords:  proud, territorial, explosive, obsessive

Thoughts:  Reds are very … wizardy. Classic tower wizards, I mean. Isolated, explosive, unhappy about conversing with inferiors. Etc. But they’re also curious. They don’t want to be left behind, or become obsolete. So they’ll disguise themselves as something well-respected, important, unlikely to be challenged. Nobles, yes, but also academics, emissaries, foreign dignitaries. Historians. Treaty-makers. Archmages. Reds want to be the linch-pins, the fulcrums around which the world turns. They can be very valuable if you manoeuvre them into the right places, but don’t put them anywhere you wouldn’t be comfortable putting sweaty nitroglycerine. They will go boom eventually.

Brass

Keywords: curious, gregarious, conversationalist, craving stimulation

Thoughts: Merchants. Straight away. Peddlers, merchants, coffee house proprietors. Innkeepers, too. Anywhere that’s gossip central. Anywhere that sees objects and curiosities from around the world. Certain stripes of academics as well. Brasses won’t be spies like greens or golds, even coppers or blacks, they won’t be collecting things for a cause, but they might sell information afterwards for their own amusement. Collecting whatever’s shiny, passing it on to whoever’s interested. Might play cheerful games of one-upmanship with other information brokers. Assets to everyone, but beholden to no one. Reactive if tricked or feel like they’ve been used badly, though. Brasses make good neutral, independent, ambiguous contractors.

Just … throw in lots of dragons. Dragons are always a fun surprise! Ancient, wily serpents steering the world or local events in varying directions. Have a world where anyone you meet could be a dragon! Dignified nobles, fearsome rebels, motherly innkeepers, travelling merchants, tired functionaries, annoying children, proud survivalists, touchy emissaries, old soldiers, cunning brothel keepers, the gossipy old biddy on the corner …

What is life without the idea that just about any of them could suddenly sprout wings and breath weapons and a lot of teeth very suddenly in your face? Heh.

[pastelbatfandoms]

ABCs of your OCs-Helena

A list of oc questions in alphabetical categories - i made each category based on the first word I could think of in alphabetical order, so enjoy!

Decided to try and answer these using Gifs and Images of My characters (aka who or what reminds me of My character)

Doing this for My AHS Witch Helena. Michael Langdon’s Soulmate and Dandy Mott’s Ex.

A: Aptitude 1. what are your oc’s natural abilities, things they’ve been doing since young?  Her witchy abilities have always been apart of Helena,she was also good at group activities where she could be in charge. 

2. what activities have they participated in? is ritual magic an activity? lol I’d say writing in her book of shadows and creating new spells is her favorite solo activity. She only participated in group activities in school and at the orphanage.

3. what abilities do they have? Shadow work,Blood Magic,Sex Magic. Dark Magic in general.

4. what things are they bad at? I don’t think Helena would admit to being bad at anything. But inside she is bad at letting go of her past and letting herself be as powerful as she truly is. Michael and Lucifer are helping her with that. 

5. what is their most impressive talent? Coming back from the dead multiple times lol Astral Projection. (Although she isn’t good at controlling the latter) Allowing the living to see and touch her in spirit form.

B: Basics 1. what is their hair color? It changes every reincarnation or rebirth. Auburn when she was born,more red after she died. Bleached it blond for awhile when she was in the coven,then back to her more natural color,then black when she was in Hell/came back.

2. what is their eye color?  

3. how tall are they? All My female characters are under 6′0″ (unless they’re supernatural)

4. how old are they? 25 (when she died) 

5. how much do they weigh?

C: Comfort 1. how do they sit in a chair?

2. in what position do they sleep? like the dead. If she does sleep.

3. what is their ideal comfort day? Being with Michael.  Helena rarely likes being alone as she was alone for far too long as a Ghost. But when she does need her down time she prefers practicing her Spells in The Woods alone at night or in her Darkened room with a glass of Wine while reading an Erotic or Historical Romance Series,or taking a blood bath.

4. what is their major comfort food? Wine and Steak now that she can eat again.

5. who is the best at comforting them when down? Michael and Ms Mead. Constance used to be.

D: Decoration 1. how would they decorate a house if they had one under their name?  Somewhere Regal like a Mansion,A Castle or a Sanctuary.

2. how would they decorate their child’s room? Very unconventional think of The Addams Family or Munsters.

3. how do they decorate their own?  Anything Retro or Vintage (like from The 1920′s to 80′s) Classical with a Dark Ambiance.

4. what type of clothes and accessories do they wear? 

5. do they like makeup/nail/beauty trends? She likes to look good yes.

E: External Personality 1. does the way they do things portray their internal personality? I suppose she shows of her Leadership personality more in public though.

2. do they do things that conform to the norm? No

3. do they follow trends or do their own thing? A bit of both.

4. are they up-to-date on the internet fads? Not really

5. do they portray their personality intentionally or let people figure it out on their own? Already answered.

F: Fun 1. what do they do for fun? Stay at home watching TV.  After discovering TV again Helena recently fell in love with The Craft,Interview With a Vampire, (because Lestat reminds her of Michael),Dusk Till Dawn and AMC’s Freakshow (it reminds her of simpler times) She also has a weakness for Slasher Films. She also likes writing,reading and when she was with Dandy going to Disney World. 

2. what is their ideal party? When she has to go to a party it usually involves death. But she loves a good murder mystery.

3. who would they have the most fun with? Michael,Violet and Tate.

4. can they have fun while conforming to rules? lol Nope

5. do they go out a lot? Not really

G: Gorgeous 1. what is their most attractive external feature? I mean have you seen her?

2. what is the most attractive part of their personality? 

3. what benefits come with being their friend?

4. what parts of them do they like and dislike?

5. what parts of others do they envy?

H: Heat 1. do they rather a hot or cold room?

2. do they prefer summer or winter?  Being a Spirit for so long Helena doesn’t really notice the changing of the seasons until she becomes Human again and even then she doesn’t care to notice it much,though she does like The Sun,something She misses after The Apocalypse.

3. do they like the snow? No

4. do they have a favorite summer activity? Spending it with Michael.  Just alone in there room,the two of them,or taking a stroll talking about anything & everything,including The end of the world. Michael is very curious. Followed by Ritualistic Sex that evening.

5. do they have a favorite winter activity? Staying in. 

I: In-the-closet 1. what is their sexuality? Straight

2. have they ever questioned their sexuality? No

3. have they ever questioned their gender? No

4. would/was their family be okay with them being LGBT? No

5. how long would/did it take for them to come out?

J: Joy 1. what makes them happy? Her Surrogate Family

2. who makes them happy? Michael,Ms Mead,Tate and Violet.

3. are there any songs that bring them joy? Yes I will list them later

4. are they happy often? Sure

5. what brings them the most joy in the world?

K: Kill 1. have they ever thought about suicide? I don’t write that. They may have dark thoughts but never act on them,this is not 13 reasons why.

2. have they ever thought about homicide? Yes

3. if they could kill anyone without punishment, would they? who? Dandy but Michael already got to him first. Has tried to kill the coven.

4. who would miss them if they died? Michael and The Cult

5. who would be happy they died, anyone? Dandy and Cordelia maybe Madison.

L: Lemons 1. what is their favorite fruit? 2. what is their least favorite fruit?

3. are there any foods they hate?

4. do they have any food intolerances?

5. what is their favorite food?

M: Maternal 1. would they want a daughter or a son? Wouldn’t really care.

2. how many children do they want? 1

3. would they be a good parent? I think so

4. what would they name a son? Lucien

what would they name a daughter? Sabrina

5. would they adopt? Yes

N: Never Have I Ever

1. what would they never do? I’m not sure. Helena thought she’d never do alot of things that she has done.

2. what have they never done that they want to do? Have a child.

3. is there anything they absolutely can’t believe people do? Look down on others because of their social class. 

4. what is the most embarrassing thing they’ve done?

5. have they done anything they thought they’d never do? Murder someone

O: Optimism 1. are they optimistic or pessimistic?

2. are they openly optimistic?

3. are they good at giving advice?

4. is there anyone in their life that throws optimism on them?

5. were they always optimistic?

>>>P: Personality 1. what is their best personality trait?

2. what is their worst personality trait?

3. what of their personality do others love?

4. what of their personality do others envy?

5. do they hate anything about their personality/about other’s personalities? <<<Might fill that out later,

Q: Questions 1. do they ask for help? Not usually

2. do they ask questions in class? She did.

3. do they answer questions that make them a little uncomfortable? Yes

4. do they ask weird questions? No

5. are they curious? Yes

R: Rules 1. do they follow rules? Sometimes.

2. would they be a strict or laid-back parent? A good balance.

3. have they ever been consequences for breaking a rule? 

4. have they broken any rules they now regret breaking? 

5. do they find any rules they/others follow absolutely ridiculous? 

S: Streets 1. are they street-smart? Yes

2. would they give money to someone on the streets? Probably

3. have they ever gotten in a fight on the streets? Not on the streets.

4. has anything happened to them on the streets? No.

5. are they cautious when out? Sometimes

T: Truth 1. are they honest? Yes

2. can they tell if someone is lying? Yes

3. is it obvious when they’re lying? Not always

4. have they lied about anything they regret lying about? 

5. have they ever been talked about behind there back? Probably

U: Underdog 1. have they been bullied? Yes

2. have they bullied anyone? No

3. have they been physically attacked? Yes but she can hold her own.

4. have they ever been doubted? Yes.

5. have they surprised people with being good at something? Surprised Michael with how good she could fight.

W: Water 1. do they drink enough water? 2. have they learned to swim? 3. do they like to swim? 4. can they dive? 5. can they swim without holding their nose?

X: Xylophone 1. what is their favorite genre of music? Oldies,Classical and Black Metal.

2. do they have a favorite song? Birdy- Strange Bird

3. do they have a favorite band/artist/singer? In This Moment & Nightwish

4. can they sing well? Sure

5. can they rap? lol No 

Y: You 1. how old were you when you created them? It was in 2019

2. what inspired you to create them? Watching AHS Apocalypse

3. were they different when they were first created? No

4. do you enjoy writing them more than other characters?  She’s not the easiest to write,but I do enjoy writing her.

5. what’s your favorite thing about them? Her Confidence,her loyalty and romantic side. 

Z: Zebra 1. what’s their favorite animal? 2. do they like animals? 3. cats or dogs? 4. what’s their dream pet? 5. do they have any pets at the moment?  Not be stereotypical but she really likes Snakes and Crows,as well as Raven’s. Her favorite Mythological Creature is The Cerberus. I don’t think it would be a good idea to have a pet around Michael though...

[saintarmand]

i mean, louis finding lestat in tvl isn't about just knowing he's alive, it's prompted by reading lestat's book and hearing about the concert and lestat being in danger and everything. but yeah, the knowledge does start to bring him out a little bit, he does begin to feel some things (which he doesn't reveal to armand bc fuck you) and wants to see lestat once again and everything. (i do wonder if they'll have him talk to him or just look at him through the window. a full he said she said doesn't really work for me lol)

but the kind of passion armand wanted him to feel, he explicitly doesn't have, and especially and most importantly not toward armand, and i'd like to see armand try to draw that out of him by telling him what he really did to claudia. cause his assumption in the book that lestat would have snitched on him to louis makes it seem like he actually wanted louis to know to push him into confronting him and feeling at least something towards him even if it's rage. and louis does not deliver. it's such a delicious concept i need to see it

and yeah, i should have said the one time he used it to make him do something, i considered mentioning the other times but i was simply lazy lol. i find those times less effective in any case because louis is aware something's happening, and armand is also doing it to claudia telling her she should lay down and die and it doesn't make her do anything lol. whereas the time with madeleine he doesn't know it so it really works properly. that's just how i look at it though. i don't remember him making him picture destroying claudia though, i only remember him doing that to lestat with gabs and nicki. i'll have to see if i can find that 🤔 but still it obviously didn't make louis actually want to do that. most of the time it seems to be only temporary images and feelings that armand can induce.

with what louis believes, i was referring to this:

“ ‘I thought perhaps he would tell you something about Paris …’ Armand said. “ ‘What should he say about Paris? That he didn’t want Claudia to die?’ I asked. Claudia again; the name sounded strange. Claudia spreading out that game of solitaire on the table that shifted with the shifting of the sea, the lantern creaking on its hook, the black porthole full of the stars. She had her head bent, her fingers poised above her ear as if about to loosen strands of her hair. And I had the most disconcerting sensation: that in my memory she would look up from that game of solitaire, and the sockets of her eyes would be empty. “ ‘You could have told me anything you wanted about Paris, Armand,’ I said. ‘Long before now. It wouldn’t have mattered.’ “ ‘Even that it was I who …?’ “I turned to him as he lay there looking at the sky. And I saw the extraordinary pain in his face, in his eyes. It seemed his eyes were huge, too huge, and the white face that framed them too gaunt. “ ‘That it was you who killed her? Who forced her out into that yard and locked her there?’ I asked. I smiled. ‘Don’t tell me you have been feeling pain for it all these years, not you.’ “And then he closed his eyes and turned his face away, his hand resting on his chest as if I’d struck him an awful, sudden blow.

he always thought he could have stopped him but by this time he seems to have come to believe he was actively responsible. i think they'll have him pretty much know in his gut (except the gory details) even if he doesn't have full confirmation from anyone. and btw im praying no dead bedroom i want louis to be like he may have killed my daughter but he does know how to fuck. and im a monster im only worthy of monsters etc

and yes im excited but also nervous for the whole surgery debacle and how they do it... i do have faith in their vision but it's also something that's very easy to fuck up 😬

but overall i do believe in their ability to do something truly amazing even if it doesnt go the way i imagine or want

armand manipulating louis's memories and keeping him against his will is not only boring to me, it completely undermines the story. is louis choosing to stay with armand for decades even knowing what he did not the ultimate gut punch of the whole book????? the show is way better off playing into the audience making the easy prediction that armand is using his mind powers on louis to deceive him about everything, and having the shocking reveal be that armand didn't need to do any of that to keep louis with him. that louis knew what armand did and stayed anyway of his own free will. THAT is devastating. much more so than louis being a hapless victim of an all powerful supervillain, with no agency in his own story and needing to be rescued. it's a reveal that's ABOUT LOUIS and one that's actually way more shocking than ooops he fell into the hands of a bad man again

[thenightling]

My horror dislikes list

I love horror, particularly Gothic Horror as a genre. However there are certain common types of horror or sub-genres of horror I don’t really care for.  Just because I don’t like it, it doesn’t mean I don’t understand it or can’t appreciate that others might like it.    This is just my personal opinion and I mean no offense to anyone.  And some of what I may list will be controversial to some.   Bear that in mind.  Horror that I don't care for:

1.  This one is probably the most controversial so I’ll list it first. 

Most controversial:  H. P. Lovecraft.   It's not that he is "too wordy" or "long winded." (Never insult me like that.)  It's not that I "don't get it."  It’s not that he uses “archaic language.”  (These are real things people have assumed when I tell them I don’t like Lovecraft).  I just feel he's overrated.  I don't like his antisemitism, which was considered extreme by 1930s American standards.  And I don't like how he's credited with creating certain concepts that weren't really his doing.  His ideas about long sleeping ancient / forgotten Gods or Old Ones can be found as early as Goethe's Faust Part 2, if not earlier.   Other authors that had similar ideas before Lovecraft include George MacDonald, author of Lilith.     Sometimes I like when other people adapt Lovecraft.  I liked Neil Gaiman’s A Study in Emerald.  I liked the origin of Morpheus’ helm in Sandman: Overture (also Neil Gaiman).  I liked the two episodes of The Real Ghostbusters animated series inspired by Lovecraft.  I even like the spoof Lil Cthulhu.  But I’m just not a big fan of actual H. P. Lovecraft. This doesn’t mean I haven’t read it.  Nor does it mean I don’t understand it.  And I do appreciate his influence on pop culture.  I just feel he’s overrated.       2.  I don't like Rob Zombie movies.  It's all the same to me.  Boring, grimy, sweaty, eldgelordy- full of overused modern tropes like flickering lights, jump scares, and "I haven't showered in a month" antagonists.  He sucked the supernatural out of Halloween and there's nothing truly distinct about any of his films.  It's just a style that doesn't appeal to me. 3.   CG.  I love practical effects.  Most CG is lazy, cartoonish, and doesn't look like it's really there.  I know it can look realistic and gorgeous at time but most horror films don’t take that route.  Most horror directors use it lazily. There’s a Night of the Living dead 4 or 5 by the Syfy Channel where a manhole cover is clearly CG.  Why did a manhole cover have to be CG?!  And there’s CG blood in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, which is very distracting because it looks like jello flying at the camera.  The werewolves in An American werewolf in Paris are already dated and very fake looking yet the transformation in An American Werewolf in London still gets to people today.  The werewolves in An American werewolf in Paris didn't even look real by 90s standards.  They looked like beasts that escaped Who Framed Roger Rabbit.   In the Fright Night remake there's a scene where a windshield shatters in front of Amy's face and she screams on que but she doesn't flinch or blink, making it very clear the glass isn't really there.  Had it been sugar glass or ice to give the effect, there would have been a natural flinch.  I feel practical effects, if you can't guess how it was done, can be more unnerving and the reactions seem more real.  That's why some 80s fantasy is more unnerving for kids than some modern horror.    4.  Jump scares.  Jump scares are lazy.  Being startled is not the same as being afraid.  And when they add a musical chord to accompany the scare it's like idiot proofing ot say "This is where you should react."   The only jump scare that ever worked on me was when I was twelve-years-old watching Interview with the vampire.  Louis says "It's the carriage." and he goes down to the door. And you know damn good and well it's not the carriage.  He opens the door, there's no one there.   You know it's coming, but when he turns his head and Lestat's hand grabs his throat, I jumped the first time I saw that.  I knew it was coming.  But I still jumped.   To me a good scare is when it creeps in and crawls under your skin. When I was watching Let the Right One In I remembered thinking “Ah, this isn’t so scary.” and it was at the part where Eli climbs up the side of the hospital.  It was snowy outside, just as it was in the movie, and late at night.  And at that moment the power went out. For a split second (It was only a second) I thought “Oh, crap!  Vampire child’s gonna get me!”   And I was a grown woman in 2008.  I was twenty-six-years-old. Another incident that made me realize just how scary Gothic horror truly is was when I was watching a History Channel show about the real Castle Dracula.  And it mentioned the locals seeing mysterious lights and noises up in the castle so some priests were sent to bless the place.  A storm came in suddenly and the priests had to do the blessing from a distance.  (This was Poenari castle, not Bran.  Bran is used for tourists.  Poenari is where Vlad spent most of his time but it’s considered unsafe).  And as I watched this I remembered that storm summoning was supposed to be one of the vampire Dracula’s powers. At that moment the door creaked open And I practically leapt out of my skin.   That’s when I knew Dracula is actually scary.

I also had a nightmare once about being a werewolf in the style of The wolfman. In the dream I blacked out during the transformation and then suddenly it was hours or a day later and I knew I must have done something terrible and I found loved ones slaughtered.   I remember the guilt in that dream and I knew The Wolfman had reached me on a level most horror doesn’t, on a fear of what it must be like to be like him.           My most recent experience with a truly good sense of my skin crawling horror was watching an episode of DC Universe's Swamp Thing. A child is possessed with the ghost of Abby Arcane's dead childhood friend.   She's been singing their old song and acting ...well, weird.   "If you're her than prove it?"  She is smiling menacingly.  It looks like she'll do nothing.  Abby turns to walk away.  This is where most jump scares happen.  But it doesn't.  As she nears the door it slams shut but that isn't the end of it.  It's not just a stupid psych out jump scare the way most horror movies do now.  Instead the whole atmosphere of the room changes.  Everything becomes damp.  The lighting dims.   Everything becomes slightly off-kilter or "wrong" like in a nightmare.  It was so atmospheric, so spooky... It was the best Gothic horror moment I had seen in literally years.  I had goosebumps.  5.   The polarization of vampire fiction triggered by the Twilight fad.  Thankfully this is dying now.   But for a while vampires were divided into two styles.  The broody, whiny emo, or the mindless killing machine AKA "the Shark with legs."   I missed the balance of charming and charismatic, but also predatory.  I missed the likes of Frank Langella as Dracula and Chris Sarandon as Jerry Dandridge. The Fright Night remake was disappointing for this reason.  I hate that vampires rarely shapeshift now.  I hate the nerfing of their powers.   And I hate that Jerry's human-side was erased as a reactionary response to be anti-Twilight.   It ruined the remake for me.  6.   Ghosts that movie like a broken VHS tape.  The jerking movement ghosts of ghosts that suddenly flicker or spasm and suddenly are a few stepped forward without actually moving...  This works in Ringu / The Ring because she IS a damaged VHS tape but in other ghost stories it doesn't really work for me.  it takes me out of the story and I notice it's following a trend. 7.    Torture porn.   Pity, and gross-out is not fear.  It's like how that game show / reality show  "Fear Factor" confused fear with disgust. "eat these random cow pies" isn't fear, folks.   Actually Torture porn kind of bores me . I don't feel fear.  It's just drawn out mutilation and torture.  I may feel pity for the character or be disgusted by the graphic mutilations but I'm not afraid of it.  And it's lazy and cheap.  8.   Next on Lazy and cheap...  Found footage.  I HATE found footage movies.   Shaky cam and screams into a camera don't do it for me.  And they all feel the same.    9.   Most Zombie Apocalypse movies.  Most recent Zombie apocalypse movies bore me.    There are a few exceptions like the original Night of the Living Dead, which, at the time it was made was unique and atmospheric but many zombie films attempt to imitate it and it becomes bland and formulaic.   I also liked Return of the Living Dead because it was one of the first Zombie Apocalypse movies.  It hadn’t yet become dull and predictable to me that everyone huddles together and it becomes more and more futile until there is no one left or it’s utterly hopeless.  And so as things became repetitive I started to dislike the ‘zombie apocalypse genre.”   Exceptions include Night of the Living Dead and Return of the Living Dead.  I also like the original White Zombie and I walked with a Zombie but those are pre-Zombie Apocalypse.   There are a few zombie films I like that aren’t that scary but I like them because they are different.  Those include “My boyfriend’s back.”  (Daddy, I love him!”  “He’s a zombie, you freakin’ idiot!”  I love that line).    And Warm Bodies.   And please don’t use Warm Bodies to discredit my status as a horror fan.  I just like it because it’s different.  First, R isn’t that bad of a protagonist.  He’s more well developed than Edward Cullen and he spends half the movie eating the brains of the dead boyfriend of the girl he’s pining for, carrying bits of brain in his pocket.  There’s no sugar coating that.   Also it’s one of the few zombie apocalypse movies to have a happy ending.  Yeah, it’s sappy and a bit hamhanded bu tit has a sweet message.  Sometimes it’s okay to like sweet.

 10.   Remakes that suck the supernatural out of a supernatural story.  I’m tired of gritty.  I’m tired of “grounded in reality.”  The supernatural is scary because it is unknown.  In the case of Child’s Play, a hacked AI doesn’t seem as creepy to me as a soul of a serial killer seeking a new host body. Also the cynical part of me suspects the “grounding in reality” is a direct ploy to get a release in China, which does not like supernatural content in American import movies. This is part of why Disney / Marvel has been downplaying Marvel’s supernatural side.  I miss supernatural horror.   I’m tired of remakes literally sucking out the soul.  

11. Bonus: Anything based on a “true case” by The Warrens.  I believe in the paranormal.   I respect paranormal research but The Warrens were known con artists, even among paranormal researchers.   If you look at most of their haunted house cases there’s a particular formula.  Woman moves into dream home with loving, Catholic family. Weird things slowly start to happen. The husband is skeptical / getting possessed.  The wife goes to the church for help.  The priests can’t help or nothing happens in front of them.   Desperate she attends a Warrens lecture.  Never fear, The Warrens are here!  And lo’ and behold, the house is full of demons!  Demons only The Warrens know how to Handle.  This happens in The Haunted (Not to be confused with The Haunting), it happens in Gave Secrets: the story of Black Hope Cemetery and pretty much every other haunted house story they got involved in.   They made book and TV movie deals and later bigger Hollywood movie deals.  Now half the horror and Parapsychology world thinks they were demonology heroes and not the con artists who once ‘exorcised a werewolf” (Look it up.)  I am not a fan of The Warrens.

[harusha]

I just saw your post about PJ and I'm wondering, do you have any book recs?

On mythology specifically or overall? I’m gonna do both since I’m not sure. Also sorry for the relatively late reply, I had to think about this, and I just got back from dinner.

The Count of Monte Cristo- Fantastic page turner, and a genuinely good “revenge” tale. It’s actually one of the first of that kind (or at the very least, one of the most popular ones). It’s also a book that a lot of people cite as the one that changes their mind on classics as “boring.”

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn- Somewhat of a controversial pick (both because of its subject matter and because it’s often “required high school reading,” ie “boring” to a lot of people.)

Huck Finn is an exceedingly complex character, and his friendship with Jim is really good. Pay attention to what Huck Finn does and says; he’s an unreliable narrator due to how he was brought up, his age, and his illiteracy. There’s also a lot of symbolism and other literary devices at play in his character (ex. notice his fixation with death and how it colors how Twain writes him). It’s very much a book I recommend if you want to study the unreliable narrator as a trope, the  Naïf version of it.

As a side note, it’s very poignant because of how Huck learns to condemn his racism. One of the messages you can get from this book is “If this uneducated poor white boy can learn to overcome his prejudices, so too can someone who has been educated, has money, etc.” It is a brutal condemnation of racism (though you do have to consider the time period, the “lens” of which you have to view through.)

Lolita- Another controversial pick, and one I’ll upright say as a lot of trigger warnings attached (google the summary, and you’ll see what I mean).

Beautiful prose (some of my favorite in literature actually) and a monster of a protagonist. When you read this, remember how Humbert Humbert is framing it. He is telling his tale to a court; he is unreliable and will frame events to make himself appear sympathetic. One notable factor of the author’s skill is how often Humbert gains the readers’ sympathy despite the atrocious subject matter. I personally felt viscerally uncomfortable reading his thoughts, and this is one of the few books that has ever made me feel that way. I didn’t fall into the sympathy trap, but look at any discussion of the book, and you’ll see what I mean.

I also recommend this author’s (Vladimir Nabokov) other works.

Franz Kafka’s literary works- Kafka is one of my favorite authors because he really showcases the isolation (both due to WWI, technological advancement, and the “beginnings” of modern capitalism) of the beginning of the 1900s, and he’s one of modernism’s premier authors. His works often deal with the themes of isolation, judgement, and outcasts. 

In particular, I’m fond of “The Metamorphosis” (cliche pick I know) and “In the Penal Colony.” The former is a short story so quick read if you just wanna try his writing style + it’s very influential (See Part 1 of Tokyo Ghoul for one example).

Also know that Kafka had a very strained relationship with his father and a conflicted relationship with his religion. I recommend reading “Letter to his Father” first to get an understanding of Kafka’s psyche to truly get pass the “nonsensical” nature of his works. It, like the title says, is a letter he wrote to his father, but his mother never delivered it.

If you want even more info on Kafka to understand his works, I recommend Kafka: Judaism, Politics, and Literature which covers a lot more (and in more succinct words) than I can on his works and life. As a fun fact, Vladimir Nabokov also placed him as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. On Kafka himself, he thought he was a failure of a human being and writer, and now look at him. He’s up there in the Western Canon with Shakespeare.

Paradise Lost + Paradise Regained- If you’re interested in Lucifer (or Samael if you subscribe to that theory), this is a must-read. Beautiful, haunting, and with a very charismatic figure in Lucifer. Alongside the obvious Divine Comedy, this work has influenced the portrayal of Lucifer and Hell quite a bit imo. Namely, the “sympathetic” portrayal you find in works such as Supernatural. It’s also an epic poem so it’s best listened to imo rather than read.

No Longer Human- Osamu Dazai’s work if you’re into that one show. An incredibly depressing book that’s often thought to be semi-autobiographical. It’s a haunting book that I don’t recommend for prose, but for the mood it evokes. I don’t recommend this unless you’re in a decent state of mind.

The Catcher in the Rye- Mildly controversial pick in that you either hate Holden or love him. It’s a book where you have to be in the “right” state of mind to appreciate Holden. For example, the period of moving away from home for college  This work deals with societal isolation and human loneliness and features an unreliable narrator.

It’s just a very particular feeling you have to be experiencing to appreciate Holden. I think anyway.

The Epic of Gilgamesh- Not super fancy or a reinterpretation of whatever. Just the oldest known written work of mankind. I like it a lot, but I like Sumerian myth so YMMV. It’s still missing a few tablets last I checked, but still a good read.

Also the related Enuma Elish, you get the creation myth.

Vampire Chronicles- I recommend the first three or four so books honestly. Afterwards, Anne Rice just goes off the rails. Prose is pretty, and Lestat is a terrible person but fascinating to read about. I am partial to Armand though tbh.

Dracula- I think this is another page-turner. I certainly enjoyed it. I don’t think it’s as scary as it would be in its’ published time period, but it is a classic Gothic horror. The unabridged version may look intimidating, but like Monte Cristo, you’ll sweep through it rather quickly.

“A Rose for Emily”- One of William Faulkner’s short stories. I think it’s a lovely piece and showcases the Southern Gothic (crumbling house, decaying and failing tradition and the southern nobility, etc.) There’s a theme of decay and time passing throughout this work.

As a side note, I actually enjoy Faulkner a lot, but he’s a difficult author imo. It’s not as apparent in this work, but more so in Intruder in the Dust (the first racial thriller) and especially The Sound and The Fury.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof- A play that deals with repressed homosexuality (maybe, it depends on how you interpret Brick’s dialogue and actions), loss, and denial. I quite like it a lot, and Tennessee Williams actually was gay (was because he’s dead and all). I read it, but tbh I feel like it would be better watched if you can find a performance on Youtube.

The Picture of Dorian Gray- Oscar Wilde’s most well known work imo. I enjoy the prose and the themes of corruption and indulgence present throughout the novel. There’s also a lot of allusions to Faust in it if you’re interested in that.

Peter Darling-a more modern choice but it features a trans and gay protagonist. Part of what I enjoy is how it’s not browbeaten into you that the protagonist is trans. It’s interwoven into the character where it’s an important part of him, but to where it doesn’t overwhelm his entire character. However, this is a novel where I feel the beginning and ending are great, but the middle is so-so. It’s a retelling of Peter Pan.

The Tain- Focuses on Cu Cuchulain and his cycle.

Poetic Edda- A must read if you’re interested in exploring Norse myths outside of Marvel. It’s basically a collection of tales.

Arabian Nights- Scheherazade is one of my favorite female figures from literature. She’s daring, clever, and particularly resourceful. It’s a frame narrative sort of tale so you technically won’t be seeing her as much since she’s telling each story, but it’s a lovely piece and perfect for a bedtime read because of its collection of tales. A lot of them have been referenced in media and related as well.

The Book Thief- Classic YA novel rec. It’s set in WWII and one of the novels that really showcases what YA could be. Basically a classic gem in the rough pile.

John Keats- He’s a poet, but I love his poetry because of how haunting and dark it can get; he often deals with themes of mortality.. Ode to Nightingale is particularly good.

China’s Four Great Classical Novels (Journey to the West, Dreams of the Red Chamber, Water Margin, Romance of the Three Kingdoms)- I decided to clump them here since this is already super long. Each one is incredibly well-known in Asia (and obviously China), and you can find allusions everywhere to these four novels. Each novel is rather long and expensive though (I paid like 40 USD for each set). Journey to the West follows Sun Wukong, unarguably one of the most well-known figures in literature (at least in the East; he’s super influential, but somewhat less so in the West; keyword somewhat). Dreams of the Red Chamber has some very pretty poems, but it’s often thought to be the semi autobiographical work of the author (it deals with the rise and fall of his family and the dynasty).

Daiyu’s flower poem is one of the most memorable for example.

The blossoms fade, the blossoms fly,  the blossoms fill the sky. Their crimson fades, their scent dies out,  and who is there to pity?  Drifting threads gently twist together  and float past the springtime lodge;  Falling willow floss lightly sticks  and strikes the lady’s window drapes.

Water Margin is a bit “bawdier” than the other ones imo, but it’s a good tale and has many notable figures and scenes. On Three Kingdoms, it’s the one I’d recommend to start with if you’re interested in military intrigue and battles.

I also have a Goodreads where I organize everything by shelf if you prefer to look at that. I do need to update it though tbh.

https://www.goodreads.com/Mahariel

[maevelin]

That is what i find so frustrating about TO. You have to be on another level of crap storywriting, if you have all the characters you need there in front of you on a plate yet instead of using your creativity and working with what you have you conjure up a baby plot revolving around a character no one even asked for. The whole reason we wanted TO as a show was to see more of TO family. These are supernatural creatures that have lived 1000 years yet theyre reduced to soap opera storylines. 1/2

I was really slow to pick up on the fact that TO wasnt going to be the show we all asked for. I wasnt really an active part of the fandom on social media then so didnt know what was going on so when TO was announced i stupidly thought this is going to be amazing, a plot about the original family. By that point i was sick of damon and most of TVD characters and was rooting for klaus to kill them all lol. It wasn't till the scene where Rebekah's driving away from NOLA in her car i (2/3)

Realised that she's actually leaving for good. I still thought in my head that this is just part of the plot but then i found out Claire left and i realised that this baby plot is actually what the show is, and not the show i was expecting so i stopped watching for a long time. Maybe i was just stupid because the pilot did make it clear it was about a baby plot and not TO family. Also weird how elijah was barely in TVD, rebekah was in it more yet Elijah was more prominent in TO. (3/3)

--- 

I honestly believe that JP never cared or wanted to write for vampires. She doesn’t have the knack or the talent for that genre. She does not grasp it. She does not care for it. I think she was there to fill in the blanks for Kevin and together they made a decent team. Kevin had the genre down up to a point and was good with the plot and the characterization and Julie could sprinkle some soap to the ships and the emotional drama and that combination actually fit. 

It is no wonder that once Kevin was out everything became a shipping soup and by the end of it everyone seemed to have one goal. To be human. To act human. To get the white fence, the babies, the normal life. Which would be find for a drama soap or show concerning humans but was catastrophic for the kind of genre show TVD was and what TO was meant to be but never was. I mean how many vampires were even left in the end? Not just those that died but those that turned...human. Come on now. JP wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She didn’t care for TO in the way a genre writer should and would. She wanted to get her baby soap and that was the only chance she actually had to go through with it. Everything else of hers that didn’t belong to the TVD franchise was getting cancelled in their pilots or before their first seasons even finished airing. And in general as a writer she writers for the telenovela kind of soap and she can’t separate in her mind church from state in the way that she couldn’t divide what she wanted as a fan from what she should write as a professional. She believed it to be one and the same and when it would not work she would throw everyone else under the bus so to avoid responsibility and then she would try to make it work anyway. Well... newsflash Felicia!

I on the other hand however was not in the same boat you were where TO was concerned. 

By the time S4 of TVD had reached its middle I was seeing things I hated. When they killed Kol while they were planning for the spin-off my mind was on red alert. I knew by that time how JP operated. It was obvious. I already knew her ways with the fans from Kyle XY too. Then I heard Phoebe had signed first. BEFORE Joseph while they had killed off Kol so Nate wouldn’t be part of the show. I saw where that Klayley trainwreck was leading. I already knew JP’s lack of talent and her inability to actually create intellectual plots and twists. So I was suspicious. I wanted this to actually work. I was an Original groupie first. I was rooting for the Original to get their own show but not in that way. It was like I watching a crash happening and I could not avert my eyes while everyone else was not seeing it.  I was voicing my concerns back then and I remember that the fandom kind of saw me like the crazy lady in the lot but when the backdoor pilot aired I was 100% sure of what TO was going to be. Rebekah was regressed to a supporting cameo ffs! Kol was dead. Klaus was OOC crying in the streets next to his lunch that was obviously by the promotional interviews and the way they framed it in the backdoor pilot meant to be his love interest with what I saw from the gifs later (since I had never finished the backdoor pilot because when they threw the twilight scene I was out) was a copy of a KC scene with the whole art but meant to be more ‘deep’. The whole episode had some cinematic moments that were okay and I remember liking that they had used the Lafayette cemetery from Interview with the Vampire. The soundtrack seemed awesome. Marcel actually seemed interesting. And then...the baby crap and I was out. Back then before the backdoor pilot had even aired Joseph Morgan had said in an interview that if he was in charge some things may have been differently done. But then I remember thinking...oh crap...and then the episode actually aired and OH CRAP.

I never bothered with TO. 

I dropped TVD like a bad habit when S4 ended and saw the ridiculousness with the doppelganger nonsense. At that point given everything JP was doing I found it really hard to understand how people could hold on to hope when it came to her and her writing. I was trying to warn people from the fandom left and right. Because I had honestly gotten truly attached not only with the ship but with the fandom too and I didn’t want people to get their hopes up and get treated as I was seeing them get treated. I was seeing it, I was speaking about it and understandably most people believed me to be irrational. I remember even people that I was close with and still am to give me the sideeye and be okaaay then.

By the time the official pilot aired along with TO’s first season I was 100% they would cut out the KC phonecall scene that was only meant to be a hook to get the green light for the backdoor pilot rather than anything else. The seen was cut of course.

But then I remember thinking that any responsible writer would aim to get a crossover as soon as possible and get Caroline there even to create a closure small arc to span in the two shows slowly (as they did with BTVS and ATS) but then they were all about saying how logistics were not working and the universes were going to be separated and I was still unable to understand how people actually had hope when the people in charge had no talent to do the basics and were so reluctant. The warning bells were there. Kudos to the DCTV universe for actually going for the crossovers in parallel back then so to show to everyone how the excuses the TO writers and producers were using were just that...excuses.

I was out for sure but I remember that I still kept an eye out to what blogs I followed reblogged and I remember when I realized how sloppy TO actually was. I remember seeing a gifset from a flashback of Klaus that aimed to be a visual parallel to Lestat from Interview with the Vampire only in the lore of the TVD franchise it was from before he broke his curse and he was shown with double fangs and golden eyes that were Hybrid traits. They actually didn’t bother to keep the basics of their main lead consistent for crying out loud. I don’t remember from which episode that gifset actually was. Only that it was from the first episodes and I was like...come on!

I remember I basically muted and unfollowed many blogs back then so to get my dash clean from that mess.

Anyhow I then returned for the 100th episode of TVD. When 5x11 of TVD was meant to air and the promos were out I was insisting that anything else that a kiss would be bad news for KC. I didn’t want to ruin everyone’s excitement but I was just getting a bad feeling about it especially after knowing JP’s track record. It was just too obvious to my eyes and it would be a regression in the development KC had up to that point. You DON’T narratively speaking -from a writing perspective- go from one cheek to the kiss to the whole sex when the characters are in different shows forming different attachment and ships if you don’t meant to wrap up the story. Which would mean leaving fans high and dry after leading them along. By that time TO was doing well in the ratings and I knew JP only cared for that and the KC fandom was not needed in her mind. I had made posts about it warning people again before 5x11 had aired. I remember I had even gotten some aggressive asks from KC fans about spoiling their fun and being negative without an actual reason. Then 5x11 airs, the sex scene is there (all sloppy to just get it out of the way...bad directing, not bothering with a song, giving the bare minimum) and JP goes all out and gives the interview about the KC closure minutes after the episode airs so to ruin everyone’s parade. Then there was the bomb with Claire’s exit which in my eyes was pending anyway ever since I had heard Claire had wanted to stay in TVD but was given an ultimatum only for her to be barely there in the backdoor pilot.

So generally speaking when it came to TO I was never hopeful. Not when JP was in charge. Not when they hired Carina out of all people for their writing team. Carina that hated Klaus and the KC fans. Not when they were disrespecting KCers from day one. Not when they were disrespecting the Kol fans. Not when Daniel was out there saying that once we would meet the new girl we would forget all about KC (which was said before TO’s first season aired so it was obvious that everyone was lying about Klaus not having a love interest). Not when the cast was mocking a whole fandom. Not when the conflicting interviews kept coming. Not when they had hired the gossip girl writers and producers and no one bothered with the actual genre. Not when...not when...not when...the list kept going. 

I kept my criticism and my predictions going and I remember being patient because most people believed me to be crazy (which I am generally but not when it came to that so I could understand the confusion) 

....and flash forward and here we are. 

Although, admittedly, certain things did surprise me on a real life level, at first anyway, because fictional stuff aside I could never believe that certain people could act in the way they did (losing flights? getting into twitter fights, picking out fans, and even calling them assholes in podcasts? on and on), but otherwise I never had any expectations to begin with so most things didn’t surprise me and yes I did earn the right to go ‘I told you so’...which I tried to tone it down many times but sometimes it was just too fun to resist. 

[breanne-says-boo]

Anne Rice Facebook livestream breakdown

Today, Anne Rice had two livestreams on Facebook, the first as a general Q&A and the second specifically related to the Vampire Chronicles television show. Part way through the second livestream, the video glitched and I missed a minute or two, but overall this is what I had.

I’ve divided the information into 3 sections and highlighted the most important or interesting things she mentioned in my opinion):

Anne Herself

Anne wants to assure fans she is the ONLY one who answers and sees emails sent by fans. She tries hard to view all of them

She also reassures that shes been trying to read as many comments given on Facebook as possible and to consider them

In her writing process, she can’t do all-nighters anymore; her books about Christ were the last time she really did this

She loves how people in New Orleans love life and celebrate it. She misses New Orleans terribly. She notes, “Lifestyles [down there] are inherited and have a beauty”

She reads more non-fiction than fiction and constantly takes notes from them, especially about archeology (which she loves: “It’s like eating ice cream for me! I love it so much”)

She says she no longer identifies as a Christian, but still has a love for Jesus and what he has done for her, such as helping her solve problems and beyond that

She has some new announcement coming soon not concerning the vampires

She feels this is the age of the nerd where readers’ opinions are most important. Says she has always taken us the readers seriously and wants us to feel appreciated. She appreciates our power and what we have done for the series.

The Books and The Characters

*spoiler* There is NO certainty Mona and Quinn are dead. This is just what Lestat believes.

She went through the pronunciations of characters’ names

Marius is pronounced like Marius in Les Miserables

Mekare is May-care-ee, but thinks other pronunciations are beautiful too

(And I think as a fandom we’ve come to agreements on everyone else’s names. She went by the names fast!)

Anne says she sums up the story of the chronicles as “how badly Lestat wants to be the hero of his own life”

She appreciates fans pointing out mistakes in her writing since she wants to be as accurate as possible, especially when it comes to history/time periods

When asked about the taste of blood/how it functions, Anne says blood is like every kind of drug- it’s sex, alcohol, drugs, everything

She writes a TON of notes since she occasionally forgets when/how certain things are mentioned, such as how the Savage Garden was introduced in the novel (which she no knows as something that occurred during Our Conversation with Nicolas and Lestat)

The name “Talamasca” came from a book on old witchcraft she found

Lestat’s name was a “blunder” rather than a “eureka” moment. His name was NOT based on her husband Stan intentionally. She was trying to look up old french names.

The transformation process of human to vampire (after getting the Dark Gift) is a little slower than how the IWTV film portrayed, but close in Anne’s mind (she truly appreciated how the film went above to stay close to her own visions and her work)

During his time with Louis and Claudia, Lestat attempted to give answers that would “keep them alive” rather than actual answers, knowing that he couldn’t reveal what he knew due to what Marius had told him (essentially, not just answers that he thought would satisfy them but that he thought would carry them on by themselves...which worked in my opinion)

There were several questions about Gabrielle and Becket commented about how Gabrielle is a fan favorite before he introduced the questions:

Anne says Gabrielle is cold, but admits that she loves Lestat yet at the same time doesn’t need him.

She does not see Gabrielle as autistic (she laughed at this question which really irked me :/ )

She will not write about a memoir from Gabrielle’s point of view since she wants Lestat to stay the focus of “the tribe” and she’s done with writing those sort of side books.

Lestat’s main concern right now is “keeping the tribe together”

She wants to continue with exploring some of the newer characters, Fareed and Seth were mentioned as a part of this.

Anne has an “ambivalence” towards Louis and she loves him since he represents an old part of her, but this is also the same reason she has trouble going back and writing for him, because she feels she is now a different person

She appreciates that there is no “real” consensus on what is the best/worst of her books amongst the fans (though Memnoch was her first example for worse soooo 😏)

In some ways, how Amel speaks to Lestat is a metaphor for how Lestat speaks to Anne.

The Television Show

(Casting)

Armand will NOT be played by someone around 14, because of the long filming process and how it will age the actor. She acknowledges fans want someone young for Armand but feels it will be too difficult to use (um, hello Anne, CGI??)

She thinks Cate Blanchett would be a wonderful pick for Gabrielle.

Says the looks are most important for Lestat, Louis just has to be beautiful (lol)

She really cares about the appearances of the cast and their availability to do about 5-6 years of filming

(Chronology and Production)

She thinks she will not go through network tv, so the home to the show would be Amazon, Hulu or Netflix.

She feels the show won’t be as violent as Game of Thrones but wants that integrity and style, and that “authenticity” to the books that Game of Thrones has (So for the rating, I’m guessing she feels around M?)

Anne wants to be true to the books and what the fans want to see (in regards to characters and plot points)

She appreciated the commitment of the team for the IWTV film and wants to keep up to that standard. She does not want unreasonable changes and compromises

Chronologically, she wants to begin with TVL with Lestat as a young man.

Feels around the 2nd/3rd season is where IWTV would start

The books are long, so it will not be a one season / one book situation.

It will begin chronologically, so it won’t be Lestat reading IWTV and THEN starting with his story as a response, it will start in France as the events happen (I was hoping it would be the former...)

No Mayfair witches in the show

Characters who are introduced later, but existed chronologically earlier like Benedick and Magnus, will be put earlier in the show

The Talamasca will be heavily involved “eventually” in the series, possibly earlier on. Related to this, she wants to tell the history of her vampires and those entities.

She wants to definitely (so badly) cover the scene where Lestat is being turned “stage by stage…” meaning him being in the tower and having realizations about his strength after drinking the blood. Also, how he turns Gabrielle (possibly wants to have a young actress to play Gabrielle and have her human age appear through makeup so the transformation will be more dramatic)

Louis’ story WILL be told, but the show will be mostly from Lestat’s POV

Anne hopes the show will go into production before the end of this year. Around 2018 is when it would come out

Anne and Chris have had a lot of interested companies already looking into developing the project (but she doesn't want to reveal who is talking to them since it “wouldn't be fair”)

She isn’t sure if the show will break the 4th wall. She acknowledges that Lestat does it in the books, but she feels she would have to stick with it for the entirety of the show and that would be difficult (so it sounds like mostly a “no” but she’s considering it)

Christopher and her are currently outlining around 5 seasons (estimated) for the TV series. They are also writing drafts for the first 4 episodes

[thenightling]

In defense of The Shape of Water (I can’t believe I have to post this...)

At first I thought I was looking at the occasional troll posts from people who just wanted to get a rise out of Shape of Water fans but as the complaints became more and more plentiful I started to wonder were they really trolls or people who just got the wrong idea from some poorly written articles about the content of the film?  Perhaps people who couldn’t follow the sign language portion of the movie for whatever reason?

Warning:  This post does contain spoilers and might contain some controversial content.

Okay, here we go...

Item one:  Elisa did NOT take sexual advantage of a “helpless” creature. 

This is somehow more stupid to me than the claims that Beauty and The Beast is stockholm Syndrome- which I also consider to be exceptionally stupid.

The complaint I’ve been seeing most is the one claiming Elisa “took advantage” of a “Poor, simple” or “Vulnerable” creature.  

1.   The Creature was learning sign language, very, very rapidly.  He actually figured out that her hand motions were language impressively fast considering  that no one else around him communicated that way.

 He learned the word “Egg” within moments of meeting Elisa and was soon able to form full sentences in sign language. He learned sign language it faster than most adult human beings, proving he is actually highly intelligent- possibly of genius level intellect- either that or he’s subtly psychic / telepathic, which is not outside the realm of possibility.  Though many wince at the comparison I have to make it here.  He’s pretty much just a non-verbal Abe Sapien from Hellboy and Abe was an intellectual.

It’s actually quite ableist to dismiss or diminish a being’s intelligence just because he does not communicate vocally.  Isn’t that what the antagonists often did to Elisa?  Constantly underestimate her and judged by appearances?

2.   Elisa did NOT “Rape” the creature.  This is a hideous thing to play “Boy who cried wolf” with and I am frankly disgusted to see this claim floating around.  You want to see a real example of a male victim of rape: I present Jamie from Outlander as an example of a victim of repeated forced sexual acts from a male and later a female character.  One by physical force, the other by threat and coercion. 

There are even warnings on some episodes of Outlander because it addresses the very serious trauma of male rape.

There is no rape in The Shape of Water.  Elisa asked The Creature in sign language if he wanted to be with her.  He gave her an affirmative response. 

Not only that but his masculine anatomy is retractable. Later Elisa describes this to her friend, Zelda.  His organ doesn’t just respond to physical stimulation, it can be hidden and “secured” by will.  Also he has very powerful claws that very easily tore a man’s throat open toward the end of the film.  

 Not only is he physically capable of preventing unwanted sexual actions the scene in question involved a literal request for consent and an affirmative response.  In fact, later he asks for her and him to be “Together” again via sign language.

3.  No, the film does NOT promote beastiality. 

_____

According to the dictionary:

bestiality bes·ti·al·i·ty (běs'chē-āl'ĭ-tē, bēs'-) n. The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal. Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality. Sexual relations between a human and an animal.

_____

The Creature in The Shape of Water does not behave like an animal.  Nor does he look like any real-world lesser lifeform.  Intellectually he has human intelligence or above that.  To call Elisa’s relationship with The Creature Beastiality you might as well claim a man who is attracted to a short, small chested woman, must be a pedophile even if she’s a consenting adult and his intellectual equal.    

There is a terrible argument being presented about the film, claiming that some primates can be taught sign language too but that doesn’t make them human or human level intelligence.   This is true however The Creature in this movie learned sign language faster than most humans.   It takes years to teach primates sign language and even then their conversations are very simple and rarely progress past kindergarten level communication.  The Creature in The Shape of Water was learning improbably fast, forming sign language sentences in days.  And he figured out that her hand gestures were a form of language even though no one else communicated that way. That takes intelligence beyond that of a chimp or even most human beings who aren’t familiar with sign language.  I would argue that not only does he have human intelligence it’s likely above human intelligence.  

The claim that because someone is unable to speak out loud they must be simple minded is a cruel argument that has been harmful to mute people for centuries.  It’s the view that mute people are seen as simple minded that is part of why cutting out someone’s tongue used to be a popular way to punish people who spoke out against those who were in power, whether politically or religiously.  It was done because even if the victim found new ways to communicate they would be perceived (by many) as being simple minded because people associated not being able to speak with being dim witted.  And unfortunately there are still people who think this way.  

The subject even comes up with the mute slave class of the Avox in The Hunger Games, all punished political prisoners who have been rendered mute to prevent them from spreading their ideas.  And even if they try to communicate who would pay attention to them now?  It’s a form of culturally accepted ableism that unfortunately has existed in the real world for centuries and as detractors of the Shape of Water have proven, still exists today. 

The word dumb even used to mean mute or unable to speak, hence the phrase “Deaf and dumb” or “dumbstruck.”    It’s because being unable to speak had been associated with being simple minded that the modern version of the word dumb (to mean stupid) was able to take hold and thankfully we almost never hear it used anymore to mean mute.   It is a disgusting and ableist argument.   

Let’s use the Frankenstein Monster as an example of this.  In Mary Shelley’s original novel when The Frankenstein Monster learned how to speak (within less than a year of him being created) he quickly picked up on German, French and English.  He was extremely articulate and eloquent. he was even very old fashioned in his way of wording things.  Even by early nineteenth century standards he was old fashioned.  He even had a favorite work of literature that he often quoted, John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

However thanks to the Boris Karloff film everyone thinks of the Frankenstein Monster as simple minded and it’s not even really the Karloff film’s fault. There’s something very wrong with that conceit- that Karloff’s version of The Frankenstein Monster is simple minded.  If you watch the original 1931 Boris Karloff Frankenstein movie and Bride of Frankenstein you realize that the Frankenstein Monster, who technically should be at infant level, intellectual development (since he was just brought to life), learned to say things like “We belong dead” in a few months.    Now just imagine a three month old baby saying that.  The baby would be seen as a hyper genius. Seriously depressed but a hyper genius.  And yet because The Frankenstein Monster has an adult body (despite only being a few months old himself) people have repeatedly treated him as dim witted in parodies and even other film adaptations and sequels even though The Frankenstein Monster was supposed to be extremely intelligent and if you pay attention even the Karloff version was extremely intelligent with how fast he was learning. The simple fact that he started off as mute has caused this stereotype that The Frankenstein Monster is simple minded even though he is not dim witted at all.  

Even Anne Rice is guilty of this with her own characters.   She had a set of twins in her Vampire Chronicles, Mekare and Maharet.  Maharet is a vampire who was blinded.  Mekare was made mute.  Maharet’s eyes were torn out and Mekare’s tongue was cut out to make her unable to speak.  And yet Anne Rice had it that Maharet (the blinded twin) was intellectually perfectly fine.  She even eventually gained sight through scientific means. 

And yet poor Mekare was treated as simple minded by Anne Rice’s first person perspective narration from The Vampire Lestat and I don’t think it was just the character’s own bigotry.  The characters of Maharet and Mekare were twins and before their mutilations Mekare was the leader of the pair, the more out-spoken.  Her mutilation, and what she emotionally suffered after that, should not have diminished that aspect of her personality or rendered her simple minded.  And yet Anne Rice, herself, repeatedly treated the character as animal-like because she could not talk.  Mekare may have suffered more but there’s no reason her intelligence should have dropped off just because she was unable to talk and yet she was treated this way repeatedly by the protagonist and author.

Too many people associate ability to speak with being simple minded and do not even realized how ableist that truly is.  They seem to do it unconsciously.

 Those who paid attention to The Shape of Water realize the movie contradicted those old and misguided beliefs and misconceptions about beings that can’t talk out loud.     

4.    There are plenty of stories where a deity or mythological figure is unable to speak vocal human languages and I don’t just mean in Hans Christian Andersen’s the Little Mermaid.    Date with an Angel (1980s movie) = The angel ate a cardboard container and could not speak. Dogma = God was unable to speak in the presence of mortals lest it would kill them. This is also true in some religious beliefs. That's why he had angels and other messengers speak for him. The Old Gods / Old Ones from the lore of H. P. Lovecraft usually cannot or will not speak human languages. In Disney's Gargoyles, Oberon took away The Banshee's power of speech as a form of punishment. In Disney’s Once Upon a Time and in the Little Mermaid Broadway musical The little mermaid was the granddaughter of Poseidon (The sea God) and she spends a great deal of the story mute (if not the rest of her life like in the original Hans Christian Andersen tale.) In Norse Mythology Loki (The Trickster God) spent a long time (likely centuries) unable to speak because dwarves forcibly sewed his mouth shut with an unbreakable thread. Afterward, when he was finally able to free himself, there were, forever, tiny scars around his lips from where the stitches had been. Neil Gaiman's Sandman = Morpheus refused to speak during his seventy-two-years in captivity by humans and Neil originally intended that Morpheus would only talk within dreams and possibly be unable to talk out loud in the waking world but Neil changed his mind by the second issue. In actual Greek mythology Morpheus (The God of Dreams) could not even take human form in the waking world. Also in Greek mythology Echo could not speak except to repeat what others said in her presence. Zeus liked to take away the power of speech as a form of punishment to people who told Harrah of his misconduct. He even had every nymph's tongue cut out so they couldn't speak of his affairs the way Echo had before her punishment. So in Greek mythology nymphs and Echo could not speak and Morpheus could not speak in the waking world. 5.  Not only is The Creature in The Shape of Water NOT simple minded but he is revealed to be a REAL God.  He wasn’t just worshipped by the natives as a God, he was confirmed as actually being a God. He’s not an animal.  Nor is he “another species.”  There are no other creatures like him.  He is literally a God.   When Strickland (the villain) dies his last words are “You really are a God!”  He has healing powers. He can cause a bald man to grow hair. He can heal wounds.  Just because he doesn’t look like what we consider to be a God doesn’t mean he isn’t a God.

And here’s a quote from the director / writer to prove it.

Quote:

“It is a river God. It’s not an animal. It’s a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one. There was him and Sally Hawkins put on Earth, and their entire existence they were going to each other. And they didn’t know. She was found in a river. No body knows who her parents were. She has these markings since she was a baby. He was in the river. The natives gave flowers. An American company came to drill oil. They killed the natives, saw the creature and said ‘Let’s cage it and take it out.’ That’s the story. And he’s been alone all of his life.“  

Source:  https://io9.gizmodo.com/if-you-wanted-to-know-where-the-shape-of-waters-fishman-1821051561

6.   Apparently some people feel if you rescue someone that having the recued person and rescuer end up together is “wrong.”

So apparently it’s a thing to denounce romances if one person is “dependant” on the other.  I understand the logic to this if the significant other is financially dependant on the other, or doesn’t speak the local language. If there’s no effort to make the person self-sufficient this can lead to a dangerous and potentially abusive situation.

The problem is this is being used too liberally.  Let me explain.  There is someone on here saying The shape of Water is bad even if The Creature is intelligent (which he IS!  Confirmed several times over and now by the novelization which gives portions from his perspective) because he’s ‘dependant on Eliza” to escape the laboratory and hide.

...So?

She wasn’t going to keep him forever, cloistered in a giant swimming pool and fed treads.  She wasn’t going to prevent him from learning about the outside world.  She just planned to hide him until it was safe to help him escape to open water.  She wasn’t a potential abuser waiting to take advantage of his “Helplessness.”  In fact he was willingly staying there out of trust.  He could have run away easily and was physically able to defend himself (as we saw at th end) but was choosing not to.  

In the end she’s dependant on him to save her and heal her.   In various faery tales the princess is rescued by the prince or in more modern ones the prince is rescued by the princess.    Why is this a bad thing?   The character can still give consent to a relationship or not.   They aren’t beholden to their rescuer.

In the movie Thor you see Jane Foster rescue Thor from a hospital and later a government interrogation.   Does this make Thor dependant on her?

In Neil Gaiman’s Sandman: Overture we learn that Alianora rescued Morpheus when he was held captive by the old Gods who took over The Dreaming.  

These characters are not usually helpless.  In fact these two characters I have listed are very proud quasi-mythological figures.  They still have their agency.  They aren’t going to suddenly be given to their enemies if they refuse their love interests.  They still have choice.

If someone offers you a ride when your car breaks down, do you suddenly refuse to ever consider that person as a potential romantic interest because you were once “dependant” on them?  Do you see how loosely this concept is being misused?  

If a date prepares supper for you does that mean you were dependant on them for sustenance?  

Because Eliza rescued The River God in The Shape of Water this is suddenly grounds for why they shouldn’t be a couple.  ...Why?   So what if he needed rescuing?  She needed him to rescue her at the end.   It’s mutual.  

Outside of fantasies with damsels in distress (or princes in peril) sometimes we are dependant on others.  And that’s okay.   When it’s not a permanent thing it’s nothing to be ashamed of and yes, you can have a relationship with that person.  It’s not suddenly ‘wrong” just because you felt you needed them at some point.  

__________________________________________ 

Item 2:

There are (I kid you not) some complaints that the movie is ableist.   

Now before anyone gets on any high horse and insist that I’m not the right person to address this (because this is Tumblr, a realm born of self-righteous anger) let me begin with Yeah, I AM disabled.   I’m borderline legally blind and my eyesight is more likely to get worse rather than better.  I’m looking at a nice, twenty inch computer monitor, set with large print text.  I will never be able to drive a car.  And I can’t read fine print very well.  When I read comic books I have to use magnifying (over the counter / non-perscription) reading glasses or read the digital format versions or I am literally struggling to read.  Prescription glasses will not help because what I have is optic nerve damage.  The left eye is totally blind (though it sometimes picks up light).  The right eye is far from perfect but it’s what I work with.   And I grew up with friends and family members who have various disabilities of their own.   Having a disability does not define you as a person but I think it does grant some sense of perspective here.

Besides the complaints claiming that Elisa somehow raped a God, who knew sign language, had physical means to defend himself, (can kill with the swipe of his hand), and not only gave consent but asked for sex later but there are also complaints claiming that the film is ableist... 

1.  I’ve seen people complain that the dance number fantasy is tasteless and that mute people never fantasize about being able to sing.  Bullshit.  Does anyone remember the episode of the TV series version of Disney’s The little mermaid with the deaf mermaid girl named Gabriella, who had an octopus interpreter?  That was based on a real little girl who was a huge fan of the show and DID claim she wanted to be able to sing like Ariel. 

http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Gabriella

   Not everyone who is disabled is perfectly comfortable with their physical limitations.   Sometimes we DO fantasize about what we can’t have.   We’re not always perfect in how we think or behave- we are human after all.  We’re not always perfectly comfortable with who and what we are and it’s not just the rest of the world that “doesn’t get it.”   Sometimes we DO want what we don’t have and that’s perfectly okay.  That’s normal.  That’s human.  And it’s okay to feel that way.  There’s nothing wrong with feeling this way.  And whether fictional or not Elisa shouldn’t be shamed for her fantasy just because she sings in the fantasy. 

I’m pretty sure we don’t have wings but how many of us dream of flying?   For a disabled person dreaming about the ability you lack is common.  There are people who claim that if you are blind from birth you never dream of sight.  I and other visually impaired people can tell you this is actually not true.  Just because people with perfect eyesight can’t fathom it doesn’t mean it does not happen.  I have dreamt of seeing with both eyes and have a pretty good idea of what it would be like even though I have never physically seen through this left eye.  

Also Elisa’s fantasy wasn’t specifically about being able to speak or sing.  It was a reenactment of a musical number she saw on TV with her friend, Giles.   It wasn’t even really about being able to sing.  It was about wanting to express how much she loved The Creature.   I don’t know how people missed that point.

And no, she didn’t talk “just fine” at the end of the fantasy.  That was just meant to be a gradual transition back to reality.  It was just a fantasy.   

2.   The complaint about Elisa’s fantasy lead into the complaint “Every time a disabled person is shown in a film they have to be made able to walk, or made able to see, or speak, before the movie’s over.”  

 Yes, I hate that too when it happens...

 I grew up with the annoying concept in the back of my mind that “You won’t have your happy ending until you’re like everyone else.”   That’s why I thought Quest for Camelot was surprisingly refreshing that Garrett never got his sight back.  Some people were angry about that but I was glad.  It showed that you CAN have a happy ending without the miraculous “cure” being part of it.  

There’s a Good Times animated version of The Little Mermaid where though The Mermaid gets the prince, she never does get her voice back and... I’m perfectly okay with that.  So what if she’s mute?  She was happy.  She had her prince and she finally got to be human, what she always wanted anyway.  And she didn’t need her voice to triumph anyway. 

 But no, Elisa never does gain a voice by the end of the movie.  And no, it does NOT confirm that she was “never human be to begin with.” I hate that “Interpretation.”  Again, see the quote a previously posted.  That quote establishes that The Creature is a river God and there really are no others like him. He does not represent some lost race and she was not of that race.  She’s his soulmate.  It’s as simple as that.  He gave her gills so she could come with him into the water.   But he didn’t think she needed a voice and neither did she.   As I said before, the fantasy sequence was not even really about her wanting a voice, but wanting to express how much she loved him.   That is all.   That’s why the song used in the scene is “You’ll never know.” 

3.  This is tied to the ableist nonsenses.  People have ACTUALLY complained about Elisa spelling out F-U-C-K you instead of just giving the sign for “Fuck.”  

Now, I’m not completely fluent in American sign language (ASL),  I only know a little bit but it’s my understanding that there are at least four gestures that mean “Fuck” or similar and at least one for “asshole.”  And people are actually complaining that she didn’t use the common sign for “fuck.”  Here’s the thing, folks.  Sometimes we deliberately want to stretch out what we’re saying, to savor the moment, and sometimes we deliberately spell our words out instead of just saying the word.  Or sometimes we avoid swears by spelling them out instead of saying them.  Sometimes it makes the word more potent if it’s spelt.  If you can’t annunciate stretching out the word, spelling can work to compensate.  Like writing “Oooooh” to indicate a gradual realization instead of “Oh.”

We (those of us with normal functional vocal cords) sometimes do the spelling out thing.  (“Stevie and Bucky sitting in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G.”) so why is it suddenly wrong if a mute girl does that too?   Isn’t it actually ableist to presume she wouldn’t / couldn’t express herself that way?

4.  There are some people complaining that the film should have used an actual mute woman in the role and that there are plenty of disabled actors out there who need the work.  There are a few people saying that Sally Hawkins having the role of Elisa is “offensive” and “Ableist.”  

Yes, there are disabled actors who need the work but in the case of Elisa, an actress is needed who fit the physical body type that was desired by Guillermo del toro, and you would add on that she would have to be mute but not deaf, and could swim / had no aversion to water.  And also had no modern accoutrements to accommodate for the muteness, and was fluent in American Sign language specifically, and could be extremely expressive in their acting as well as learning complex dance moves.  It’s not impossible but it would have been very difficult. 

I’m not saying a real mute person can’t do the role.  I’m just saying that such a role could be difficult for anyone.

As I am possibly ill-suited to judge, I have consulted with verbal and hearing impaired friends that I grew up with on Long Island, and none of them were offended by Elisa. In fact most of them love the character.     

With the online complaints that they should have used a mute actress, I saw similar complaints about Angelique in the TV show Penny Dreadful, how she should have been played by an actual Trans woman. 

 Normally I would see nothing wrong with wanting that but Angelique was a Trans woman in the late nineteenth century- a time when there were no Transition surgeries, no hormone treatments, and there was going to be at least one scene of Angelique not presenting herself as female.  This could be traumatic for a Trans actress and requires some specifics that might be seen as troubling, difficult, or impossible for many real Trans actresses. No, not impossible, but definitely difficult if you want realism for someone of that time period trying to present themselves as the gender their soul is but not their physical body.   I’m not saying a real Trans woman can’t do it, but it might be very difficult for her and praise for any Trans woman who would take on that type of role. 

 And here’s a very real question.   If we only cast real mute people, or real gay people, or real (insert minority thing here) how long until it’s no longer acting?  Yes, gay, disabled, ect, actors of minority backgrounds should be cast for the roles that fit them when they are available but you would be surprised how often they don’t actually come to casting calls.  I was made aware once of a play that featured a blind character and literally only one blind actress showed up for the casting and she wasn’t very good at acting either, no matter how much they tried to coach her and she refused to learn the lines.  She felt she deserved the role simply for being blind, and didn’t care about the actual acting part.   

If we are strict and specific in casting where do we draw the line?   Do we stop letting people dye their hair for roles?  Do we insist short actors can’t take tall roles anymore?  Do we require blue eyes when blue contact lenses are readily available?  Do we tell women like Wao Yoka (a popular Japanese theatre actress) that she can’t play male roles because there are plenty of male actors who want the part?  

Where do we draw the line?  I know that despite my poor eyesight I’m not offended by Charlie Cox as Daredevil.

Yes, I would like to see more actual disabled actors in Hollywood but it’s not that people refuse to cast them. It’s just that not as many people with disabilities make the effort to take the big roles as you may think. If you don’t believe me, check out any open casting for a disabled character role and look how few actual disabled people show up at the audition.

Also we tend to take for granted when celebrities shine that do have disabilities. And often no one thinks of them as disabled.  Look at David Bowie for example.  David Bowie had no depth perception due to damage in his left eye.   When he was in a production of The Elephant Man they pushed back the sets because he stumbled off the stage.   For yearsm before David Bowie died, he had a book of his own song lyrics with him whenever he performed and the lyrics were all in large print.  

It’s actually good thing that there are quite a few disabled people in Entertainment that no one considers disabled.  William Shatner has Tinnitus, Stephen King has deteriorating eyesight, Michael J. Fox has Parkinson’s Disease, Millie Bobby Brown is deaf in one ear,  Lou Ferrigno is hearing impaired. And most of these actors (and writers) play or write characters who don’t even have the disabilities they have.  Their disabilities don’t define them.

If we create an obligation that characters like Elisa have to be played by a disabled person then what?  Do we stop letting Millie Bobby Brown from playing characters who use both ears?  Do we stop letting gay men play straight characters?  Do we forbid Trans women from playing cis women?  Where do we draw the line?   Isn’t the whole point of acting to become something you really aren’t?  To transcend from yourself into new experiences and identities outside of what you know in your day to day life?     

Note: I do not think of being gay as a disability.  Nor do I think of being Trans as a disability.  I only bring up Gay and Trans roles because I have seen that argument before about Gay and Trans characters and how they should only be played by real Gay people and or real Trans people.    

Yes, I agree that more actual disabled, actual Trans, actual minorities of various types, should be cast in Hollywood, but it’s also okay when those cast are not playing roles specific to their “Minority status.”  If a disabled person plays someone who doesn’t have their real world disability- great.   If a Trans woman plays a Cis woman- great.  If a gay man plays a straight role- fine.  And I don’t think people like Sally Hawkins should be penalized because she’s not really mute.  That’s not fair.    All roles should potentially be open to anyone.  Perhaps it’s not popular to think this way, but I do.  

5.  It’s when beautiful films The Shape of Water are discredited as Abelist that Hollywood gets discouraged and stops trying to represent characters like Elisa in Hollywood and frankly I think we need MORE characters like Elisa in Hollywood.  She’s not just a strong disabled character.  She’s not just a strong woman character.  She’s a strong character, period.   

Elisa is clever.  She’s cunning. She is brave.  She is warm.  She is caring.  She is compassionate.  She’s kind.  That’s important.  She’s kind.  You don’t see that too often with Hollywood’s idea of “strong” female characters anymore. They tend to treat kindness like a weakness.  Elisa is kind.  She is beautiful in her very soul.  She is open minded.   She does not judge by appearances.  She isn’t a bigot.  She likes eggs. She hates Key Lime Pie.  She has a fondness for old musicals.  She does not like to be ignored but is patient for her friends.  She does not abide injustice if she can help it.  She’s not afraid to speak her mind. She’s poor, working class, but not at all stupid or complacent with her place in the scheme of things.  She’s an orphan.  She has no family. She’s not afraid of her own sexuality.  She has the heart of a secret agent and the tenacity to fool the world.  She’s such a great person that she wins the admiration, respect, and love of a God, a God that SHE rescues.  She’s more well developed than most Hollywood protagonists today.  

Also Elisa’s actress, Sally Hawkins, is nearly forty-two-years-old. Hollywood still has that sexist / agist stigma that most female protagonists (particularly in love stories) have to be in their late teens or early twenties.  This character broke a LOT of barriers and should be celebrated not scrutinized and criticized.     

______________________

Conclusion:

Honestly, most of this defense of The Shape of Water should have been common sense.   The Shape of Water is a gorgeous movie and very respectful to people with disabilities.  There was nothing wrong with Elisa.  Her true love just happens to be an aquatic God who didn’t know human languages. 

And again, just because he got captured and doesn’t look human doesn’t mean he’s not a God.  

Ever read Neil Gaiman’s Sandman?  

The first issue of Sandman: Prelude and Nocturns features Morpheus (the ruler the dream realm) trapped in a giant glass bubble in a magical binding circle. He was kept naked and held prisoner that way, dehumanized, for seventy years in the basement of an occult organization’s main house.  And he doesn’t speak during his entire captivity either.

 He was the prisoner of the group that summoned and trapped him.  And he looked like an emaciated, naked, alien, with chalk-white skin, wild-dark hair, and sold black eyes.  In short, he looks humanoid but not precisely human, much like The Creature in The Shape of Water. 

    Sometimes deities don’t look the way we expect and it’s human arrogance that makes us not realize their true power.  Isn’t that also what happened to Jesus in Christian lore?  That he wasn’t recognized for who and what he truly was because of his humble appearance? 

The Shape of Water has the same lesson we’re supposed to learn with Beauty and The Beast.  Don’t be deceived by appearances.   And yet I think many did judge and made assumptions by appearances in regard to The Shape of Water . And that is both ironic and tragic. 

In the case of The Shape of Water, I urge you to watch the movie for yourself.  It’s a gorgeous film.   It deserves the praise.   And don’t judge it because you saw some pretentious and self-righteous blog post bashing it based on misinterpretation or hearsay.  That is all.