#does that undo the horror of what lestat did to him?

[pynkhues]

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

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

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

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

(x)

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

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

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

[faithandfairies]

Just saw Nosferatu yesterday. It's exactly the vampire horror I wanted it to be.

I also see influences of it in Interview with the Vampire.

Next are all the Nosferatu spoilers as I talk about the movie.

SPOILER SPOILERS ALL THE SPOILERS

A couple of things I love about it are: 1. At no point is the vampire hot. Literally never. Which I think is excellent, because our brains tend to short-circuit whenever someone is hot and suddenly we act like they can't be evil. But he's a pervy rotting corpse straight out of the grave 100% of the time. Perfection.

2. It's not a love story, at least not between the vampire and the human. The human was able to wake the vampire from his death sleep and did so accidentally when she was sad and lonely because she was a seer of some sort, looking for companionship. She prayed but as they usually make the mistake of doing, they pray to any entity willing to listen when they're desperate enough. He offers her the bond, she accepts and he then fucks her "in spirit" to officially bind her to him. He then appears in her dreams every night to keep the bond from weakening. Then when she finds love and gets married he contacts the boss of the guy and gets the guy to travel to him and sign a deal that sells her to him. But the vampire still needs her to agree anew herself because she now made vows to someone else which weakened their bond. So he starts to kill strangers and then everyone she loves to isolate her and manipulate her into saying yes to the bond again. She ultimately only says yes because she doesn't want her idiot husband whom she loves (and who actually does love her) to become one of the vampire's kills.

3. He's regarded as a type of demon. One that can be summoned using a demonic summoning ritual. Which makes sense to me because to me, if vampires exist, they probably are a type of demon created by God or the devil himself. Or maybe humans. They're not the main event. But they are a second cousin.

4. "Come to me" made an appearance but it was the human who said it to the vampire.

5. It also offers some more insight into the vampire bond. Like the vampire speaks to the human in his mother tongue which she probably doesn't know, yet she understands him. They also had entire conversations while he was in his country and she was in hers. Based on what she said I got the impression he was also able to feel and see her without being near her. And you got the impression that she physically experienced each of his feedings and kills. He was also at her mercy in a way. His "loving" her and binding himself to her could become his undoing. His feeding also spread like an actual plague. It didn't just make people anemic, it seemed to make them actually sick beyond that. But I got the impression that he would be able to drink from her indefinitely, as in several times over, without making her sick because of the bond. He also drank from the chest when he wasn't trying to kill his victim. Which kind of made me think of Lestat and his obsession with Louis' heartbeat and kissing Louis' chest and Louis and Lestat giving the impression that they vampire bit down each other's chests when they fed on and fucked each other. I get that idea from the chest bites Louis left on the victim in the park in France that he thought was Lestat. Something we never saw them do with actual victims. A lot of this movie made me think of Louis and Lestat actually. The biggest difference honestly being that Louis and Lestat are both hot and the human in this one was in love with someone else and the vampire was NOT having it even more than Lestat was not having Louis ignoring him because he was gay panicking and then grieving. Other than that the vampire's manipulation and isolation of the human etcetera were pretty much the same (times 100 in the movie). As well as being at the human's mercy sometimes.

[bulbuli83]

prev tags

#i will say though i've never said louis and claudia cast him out#i said he was cast out#i think he cast himself out#but louis and claudia pointedly don't let him back in#like it's literally a huge part of the episode#he respects that line#it's his house#if he was the singular aggressor and controller you're painting him as what's stopping him from forcing his way back in?#louis doesn't have the power to keep lestat from rr okay#sure#then why isn't lestat living in the house for literal years?#what does that tell us thematically?#what does louis throwing lestat's coffin from a window mean?#what does it mean when louis stabs him and bites him and drags him from his mistresses house?#why don't they replace lestat's coffin in the house at rr?#they leave the damage so they don't forget the damage#but symbolically all that does is tie louis and lestat closer together#they sleep entwined in louis coffin#which is dented from where louis smashed lestat's face into it#these aren't real people these are characters and the decisions they make are deliberate writing decisions#intended to reveal character theme plot#louis IS one of the monsters in the house#does that undo the horror of what lestat did to him?#of course not#and that should never be undermined#but louis DOES control the household alongside lestat#he chooses when lestat gets to come home

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

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

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

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

(x)

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

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

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